[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      THE END OF ONE COUNTRY, TWO 
                       SYSTEMS?: IMPLICATIONS OF 
                       BEIJING'S NATIONAL SECURITY
                            LAW IN HONG KONG

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              JULY 1, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-122

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
41-196PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                            
                    

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey		     CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California		     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California	             LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas		     JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California		     FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	     BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota		     JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas    		     RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		     GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland		     MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas

                    Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
               Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Lee, Cheuk Yan, General Secretary, Hong Kong Confederation of 
  Trade Unions...................................................     8
Petersen, Carole J., Professor of Law, William S. Richardson 
  School of Law, Graduate Chair, Matsunaga Institute for Peace, 
  University of Hawai'i at Manoa.................................    10
Leung, Brian, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Washington..........    12
Law, Nathan, Former Hong Kong Council Member, Yale University....    14

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    60
Hearing Minutes..................................................    62
Hearing Attendance...............................................    63

              STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM CHAIRMAN ENGEL

Statement for the record from Chairmane Engel....................    64

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement for the record from Represenative Connolly.............    77

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    79

 
    THE END OF ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS?: IMPLICATIONS OF BEIJING'S 
                                NATIONAL
                       SECURITY LAW IN HONG KONG

                        Wednesday, July 1, 2020

                           House of Representatives
                       Committee on Foreign Affairs
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in 
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot Engel 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Mr. Sherman. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any point. And all members will have 
5 days to submit statements, extraneous materials, and 
questions for the record subject to the length limitations in 
the rules.
    To insert something in the record, please have your staff 
email to the previously mentioned address or contact the full 
committee staff.
    I see that we have a quorum. And before I go forward, I 
understand the Speaker of the House Ms. Pelosi will be stopping 
by this hearing. And I ask unanimous consent that she 
participate at any point she arrives during the hearing.
    So ordered.
    And there she is. Madam Speaker, would you like to make 
some remarks?
    Speaker Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman. I thank 
you and Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Eliot Engel for having this hearing 
today.
    It is with great sadness that I come here because we had 
such optimism and such hope. The U.S. Congress has always 
spoken in bipartisan House and Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, with one voice in defense of those who are pressed 
by Beijing and in support of freedom, justice, and real 
autonomy for the people of Hong Kong.
    We continue to urge President Trump to hold Chinese 
officials accountable for abuses, including taking steps under 
the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. We must consider 
all tools available, including visa limitations and economic 
penalties.
    But here today I am very honored to join Cheuk Yan Lee, 
General Secretary, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions; 
Carole Petersen, Professor of Law, University of Hawaii; Brian 
Leung, a Ph.D. university candidate, University of Washington; 
and virtually, electronically, Nathan Law, Legislative Council, 
former member Leg. Council of Hong Kong, and former chairman 
Demosisto.
    Again, for years the world has watched in horror as Beijing 
has accelerated its campaign to dismantle the rights and 
freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, from its brutal response 
to peaceful protest, to the introduction of the horrific 
extradition law that we condemned.
    So many times this committee, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Eliot Engel; 
in the Senate, Marco Rubio, Mr. Cardin and others, have put--
now Chris Van Hollen, Mr. Toomey over there, Democrats and 
Republicans, have put the bright spotlight on what is 
happening. The Executive Commission on China, chaired by Mr. 
McGovern, and co-chaired by Chris Smith, Vice Chair Chris 
Smith, have worked very hard with hearings, et cetera, as has 
this committee, to call attention to all of this.
    The Lantos Commission on Human Rights, the former chair of 
this committee, in a bipartisan way has called attention to all 
of this over the years, since Tiananmen Square, and then in 
terms of Hong Kong more specifically, leading up to 1987, and 
including that.
    And what is so sad about it is that the Chinese just think, 
the Chinese regime just think that they can act with impunity 
in repressing the spirit of democracy. Two million people 
turned out against the extradition law. Two million people. 
That is a big crowd in the United States. But when you 
understand it was 25 percent of the population of Hong Kong, 
that is just almost anybody who could go out, showed up against 
what the Chinese regime was going to do.
    And what they want, they want, the most horrible form of 
horror--just keep using the same word--for someone who is 
fighting for democracy or is imprisoned because of it, it is 
for the regime to say nobody cares, they are not even paying 
attention to what you are doing. Nobody remembers you, that you 
were in prison and--or why you are even there.
    Well, we know why they are there. Something deep in the 
soul of all of us, something that the young people commemorated 
in Tiananmen Square, having the Goddess of Democracy as their 
symbol, something that we have led the way on and that we 
cannot turn our backs on.
    When Beijing announced its intention to pass the so-called 
National Security Law--so-called--we were concerned. It was 
frightening. It is nothing short of an all-out effort to negate 
the rights of the people of Hong Kong in violation of the 
agreements made under the One Country, Two Systems. We were 
concerned of what it might be. And it exceeds even those 
horrors.
    The law is a brutal, sweeping crackdown against the people 
of Hong Kong, intended to destroy the freedoms they were 
promised. Thank you to the committee for holding this hearing 
which asks the question: is this the end of the One Country, 
Two Systems? It seems as it is.
    As I have Stated, Beijing's so-called National Security Law 
passed on the eve of the 23d anniversary of the handover of 
Hong Kong from the U.K. to China signals the death of the One 
Country, Two Systems principle. The purpose of this law is to 
frighten, intimidate, and suppress the people of Hong Kong who 
are peacefully demanding the freedoms they have long been owed. 
All freedom-loving people must come together to condemn the 
law, which accelerates Beijing's years-long assault on Hong 
Kong's political and economic freedoms.
    Many of us have been working for--Mr. Smith and I have been 
working for three generations, Martin Lee another generation, 
now Nathan Law and Joshua, to see the courage of these people 
speaking out as they have done, and to see matters just getting 
worse in terms of the regime. Of course, right now we are also 
concerned about the Uyghurs in China, the Tibetans in Tibet. 
The list goes on.
    In terms of the Uyghurs, what we are finding out this 
morning is not only are they putting Uyghurs in concentration 
camps, they are, by social media and the rest, tracking Uyghurs 
throughout the world and what their communication is with 
people inside. So this reaches into our own, reaches into our 
own country.
    Again, I will say all freedom-loving people must come 
together to condemn this law. We must work together in a 
multilateral way to monitor the implementation of this law and 
hold Beijing accountable for its violations of the Joint 
Declaration and the basic, Basic Law.
    As I have said many times over, I have said this over and 
over again, if we do not speak out for human rights and 
democratic freedoms in China, let's just talk about here, if we 
do not speak out for human rights and religious freedom in 
China, we lose all moral authority to speak out anyplace if our 
silence is because of commerce. If we refuse to speak out on 
human rights in China because of commercial interests, we lose 
all moral authority to speak out for human rights anyplace in 
the world.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, Acting Chairman Mr. Sherman, thank you 
for the recognition. Thank you to Mr. McCaul and to the members 
for the opportunity with unanimous consent to express some of 
the views which I hold to be bipartisan, bicameral in support 
of the people of China, in this case Hong Kong.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Sherman. Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for your 
decades of fighting for human rights, particularly for the 
people of China. And your presence here underlines for the 
world the importance that America puts on the subject of this 
hearing. So thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for 
mentioning the Uyghurs as well.
    Speaker Pelosi. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sherman. As a reminder to members, staff, and all 
others physically present in the room, per the guidance of the 
Office of Attending Physician, masks must be worn at all times 
during today's proceedings, and are strongly advised when a 
member is speaking from their microphone.
    Please also sanitize your seating area. The chair views 
these measures as a safety issue, and therefore an important 
matter of order and decorum of this proceeding. Please keep 
your video function on at all times if you are participating 
remotely, even when you are not recognized by the chair. 
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. And 
please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking.
    Just a few minutes before the hearing was scheduled to 
begin, I learned that our distinguished chair Eliot Engel could 
not attend, or at least could not attend for the first portion 
of this hearing. He has done an outstanding job of chairing 
hearings year after year, and I will try to fill in for him 
here today.
    I do not have--I am scurrying around trying to put together 
an opening statement. And so I will first recognize the ranking 
member to deliver his opening statement, after which I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam 
Speaker, for being here today. That shows how important this 
hearing is. You have been a steadfast champion of human rights 
and democracy around the world. And if we do not--you are 
right, if we do not have moral authority here, we have it 
nowhere.
    And just I think it means a lot to us on both sides of the 
aisle that you have taken the time from your busy day to be 
here and to be in our presence.
    Today is the 23d anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong 
to the Chinese Communist Party. Under the Sino-British treaty 
that set up this handover, the people of Hong Kong were 
promised One Country, Two Systems so they could be allowed some 
level of autonomy. The One Country, Two Systems approach worked 
well for many years. But recently the CCP began to rapidly 
erode this system by peeling away the rights and freedoms 
guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong.
    And then yesterday the CCP took a sledgehammer to One 
Country, Two Systems by passing sweeping so-called national 
security legislation that strips away the autonomy of Hong 
Kongers, violating the terms of the Sino-British treaty. They 
view democracy, individual liberty, and free markets as a 
threat, and have declared war on each.
    Unfortunately, this wasn't the CCP's only act of brutal 
suppression we learned about this week. On Monday, the world 
was made aware the Chinese Communist Party is using forced 
sterilization, forced abortion, and coercive family planning 
against ethnic minorities, including the Uyghur Muslims. It is 
clear the CCP does not care about the people of China; they 
only care about preserving their own power. And by brutally 
suppressing democracy in Hong Kong, the CCP is challenging the 
underlying assumptions that have guided the world since the end 
of the cold war.
    We sit here, as the Speaker said, not as Republicans or 
Democrats, but as Americans united in our strong support for 
Hong Kong. This is a battle between democracy and dictatorship, 
between liberty and tyranny, and between freedom and 
oppression, and it is a battle that the world must win.
    I would like to take this opportunity to speak directly to 
the people of Hong Kong. America stands with you, and America 
will always support you. Last year when we heard you sing our 
national anthem, and when we saw you carrying our American 
flag, we knew and we know that you were telling us we are not 
two people but one, both united in our belief in freedom and 
democracy for all.
    Today is not just the anniversary of the first handover of 
Hong Kong to the CCP, it is also the 1-year anniversary of a 
heroic act by one of our witnesses here today, Brian Leung. One 
year ago today during demonstrations in Hong Kong, Mr. Leung 
gave a moving speech where he revealed his identity, 
subjectingly--subjecting himself to significant prosecution.
    I have met another one of our witnesses, Nathan Law, last 
year when we passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy 
Act. He is an incredible young man who, along with other 
democracy activists, like Joshua Wong, are risking their safety 
and security every day to fight for freedom. They are all 
commendable, and I am grateful to have them with us here today.
    As Chairman Engel and I said in a letter earlier this year, 
quoted as critical to the United States using available tools 
under the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and other 
authorities, to make clear Beijing--to Beijing that its 
violations of international commitments and its commitments to 
the people of Hong Kong will have consequences.
    And I urge the Administration to issue the sanctions 
authorized by this Congress. With this hearing today, we have 
this opportunity. America stands in solidarity with the 
freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, and will continue to be a 
beacon of hope for all those fighting for democracy around the 
world.
    And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Consistent with House Resolution 
965 and the accompanying regulations, staff will only mute 
members and witnesses, as appropriate, when they are not under 
recognition. And they will do that for the purpose of 
eliminating background noise.
    Pursuant to notice, we meet today to discuss the new 
National Security Law that the Chinese Government has forced on 
the people of Hong Kong on the 23d anniversary of the handover. 
This is Beijing's latest and most aggressive challenge to Hong 
Kong's autonomy. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes as 
an opening statement.
    It is important to know how we got here. In 1997, we had 
the adoption of the One Country, Two Systems arrangement that 
guaranteed 50 years of relative autonomy to Hong Kong: freedom 
of expression, independent judiciary, strong democratic 
systems. And over the past two decades Hong Kong's unique 
status has allowed it to flourish, to prosper. Human capital, 
privileged financial position as a gateway to China, with a 
trusted common law system of law and courts, have turned Hong 
Kong into a hub of finance and trade.
    Historically, in Hong Kong corruption is low, contracts are 
honored, judges can rule fairly and independently, journalists 
and academics enjoy freedom of expression, and human rights are 
generally respected. Hong Kong has seen its success create a 
vibrant society.
    This is a glaring embarrassment to the Chinese mainland. 
One Country, Two Systems is an embarrassment if the smaller 
system is working much better. Now this does not mean that Hong 
Kong was perfectly free, or that the system it had in place 
last year was perfectly democratic. But compared to the 
government in Beijing, it shows the people of China what can be 
done by moving in the direction of freedom.
    In December, as chair of the Asia Subcommittee, I hosted a 
hearing titled ``Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics: 
Political and Religious Human Rights Challenges in China.`` And 
that hearing featured the vice president of the City University 
of Hong Kong Students' Union, Joey Siu. The committee passed a 
resolution at my suggestion, by unanimous consent, last year 
supporting the right of Hong Kongers to protest.
    No one should face life in prison for going to the street 
to voice their opposition, not in this country, not in Hong 
Kong, not anywhere. The One Country, Two Systems was designed 
to safeguard Hong Kong's role in thriving--as a thriving 
financial center. Now Hong Kongers are fleeing Hong Kong out of 
fear for their safety, and we should support their right to do 
so, though the right we really want to support is the right of 
all Hong Kongers to the level of autonomy promised in the One 
Country, Two Systems agreement.
    We have witnesses in the last 24 hours, nothing short of 
terrifying events in Hong Kong. We need to reject this Chinese 
violation of China's own international commitments and the 
commitments they have made to their own people.
    The peoples of Hong Kong expected China to honor the 
commitment under the Two Systems part of the agreement, but 
over the past few years Beijing has chipped away at Hong Kong's 
freedoms. In 2014, when officials in Beijing curtailed voting 
rights for the people of Hong Kong, a new generation of 
democracy activists under the banner of the Umbrella Movement 
came to the forefront.
    Year after year, injustice after injustice, a broadening 
coalition of Hong Kongers from all walks of life have taken to 
the streets to protest their rights. Now Chinese President Xi 
Jinping has launched an unprecedented attack against Hong Kong. 
Beijing's National Security Law undermines the very essence of 
Hong Kong's autonomy by introducing a new range of offenses and 
punishments for so-called crimes against the State. The 
legislation will compromise Hong Kong's independent judiciary, 
and severely curtail freedom of expression, and criminalize 
dissent.
    So why is China willing to break these commitments? 
Unfortunately, when we look down Pennsylvania Avenue we see an 
Administration willing to, in effect, tell China that its 
obligations to human rights, whether it be in Hong Kong or 
whether it be the Uyghur people, will simply not catch the 
attention of the American Administration. We have squandered 
months without speaking out at the executive level.
    Hong Kong has been on the back burner in an effort to sell 
soy beans, and we haven't even sold the soy beans. President 
Trump spent January and February of this year praising Xi 
personally for how he handled the coronavirus. Now, you know, 
he has taken the exact opposite approach. We need consistency 
in the White House, and we need a consistent adherence to our 
own standards of human rights.
    I am grateful to our witnesses for the insight and 
experience they bring us. And I will now move toward 
introducing the witnesses.
    Our first witness is Mr. Lee Cheuk Yan, a former member of 
the Hong Kong Legislative Council. He is the General Secretary 
of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and Vice 
Chairman of the Hong Kong Labor Party. And why do not we hear 
from----
    Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sherman. Yes?
    Mr. McCaul. Mr. Smith would like to make a few opening 
remarks, if that would be acceptable.
    Mr. Sherman. Were your opening remarks less than 5 minutes, 
Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. I wasn't keeping time, but it was three--three 
minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. I think that would open it up to everyone 
here. Is there----
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sherman. Yes?
    Mr. Connolly. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Smith be 
recognized for 3 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. Hearing unanimous consent, I want to hear from 
a champion of human rights. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. McCaul. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to my good friend from 
Virginia.
    Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your very elegant statement 
and for we have worked together for well over three decades on 
combating human rights abuse by China. During the Tiananmen 
Square, during the MFN battles, and all the others, we were 
joined in a very, very bipartisan way. Frank Wolf, you might 
recall, Tom Lantos, and all of us speaking very aggressively 
against aiding and abetting this horrific dictatorship which 
has only gotten worse under Xi Jinping. So thank you for your 
leadership.
    Mr. Chairman, the great freedom-loving people of Hong Kong 
have just had another draconian, anti-democratic law imposed 
upon them. And that is called the so-called National Security 
Law. It severely penalizes democracy activists. And even terms 
like ``collusion`` are outlined in the new law.
    And it defines that any contact with external actors, like 
human rights organizations, journalists, Members of Congress, 
those great people like Joshua Wong and others who have come 
here and said, all that we are asking Xi Jinping is for 
freedom. That is it. And to live up to your own promises made 
in the Basic Law and in the joint communique between Hong Kong 
and China which facilitated the transfer or the conveyance of 
Hong Kong to China.
    They have broken their words. You know, words matter. And 
it is a matter of international law that they committed for at 
least 50 years to having these two Chinas, Two Systems, One 
China. And now they are breaking it with impunity.
    Let's not forget that Xi Jinping continues to commit 
pervasive human rights abuse against the Chinese people, 
including the use of torture, which has been documented over 
and over again by the Special Rapporteurs for the United 
Nations, forced abortions, forced sterilization. Mr. McCaul 
rightly pointed out that they are using those tools of 
repression as a means of genocide to eliminate the Muslims in 
the Xinjiang region, 10 million strong. They are going after 
them to destroy their children, to destroy their families. And 
of course, one to two million are in concentration camps.
    The crushing of the Tibetan people continues unabated. And 
of course, there are no labor rights. And under Xi Jinping 
under what he calls sinicization, there is an all-out effort to 
end all religious practice unless it comports with Marxist 
principles. It is called sinicization, and it is going from bad 
to worse.
    The Hong Kong Human Rights Act, and I was the House sponsor 
of it, it is a bipartisan bill obviously. Mr. Suozzi was our 
principal co-sponsor, 130 co-sponsors or so, backed by just, by 
everybody on this committee, that is now law. And the President 
did sign it. And pursuant to that law, on schedule, he did make 
the statement that the loss of autonomy has happened.
    So we are, we need to unite now, Democrats, Republicans. We 
have done it before. We have got to do it, with the President. 
And the world needs to unite against this pervasive human 
rights abuser Xi Jinping and this draconian law that they just 
put into effect.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you for those comments and for decades 
of dedication to human rights. I am going to introduce all of 
the witnesses and then call on them in turn.
    Our second witness is going to be Professor Carole J. 
Petersen, Professor of Law at the William S. Richardson School 
of Law, and Graduate Chair in the Spark M. Matsunaga Institute 
of Peace at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    Next we will have Mr. Nathan Law, the founding chairman of 
the pro-democracy organization Demosisto, and the youngest ever 
elected lawmaker when he won a seat on the Hong Kong 
Legislative Council in 2016.
    Last we will have Brian Leung Kai-Ping, a Hong Kong 
democracy activist known for reading a statement on behalf of 
the protesters at the Legislative Council that crystalized the 
Five Demands for the 2019 Anti-Extradition Movement.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I 
will recognize each witness for 5 minutes. And without 
objection, your prepared written statement will be made part of 
the record.
    I will first call upon Mr. Yan for his testimony.

   STATEMENT OF CHEUK YAN LEE, GENERAL SECRETARY, HONG KONG 
                 CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS

    Mr. Lee. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the invitation 
to talk about the situation of Hong Kong at this very, very 
critical moment.
    The passing of the National Security Law by the National 
People's Congress yesterday has sounded the death knell for One 
Country, Two Systems. The people of Hong Kong were not shown 
any wordings of the law when it was passed, showing the 
contempt of the Chinese Communist Party on the rights of the 
people of Hong Kong. This represents a second handover for Hong 
Kong, and for me personally, my third handover.
    On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was handed over to China by the 
British Government under the promise of One Country, Two 
Systems, guaranteed by the Basic Law. The imposition of 
National Security Law on Hong Kong represents the second 
handover, with a promise of high autonomy for 50 years all 
broken. And Hong Kong was handed over back to China as One 
Country, One System.
    For me personally, it is my third handover. Why is that? I 
was arrested on June 5th, 1989, just after the Tiananmen Square 
massacre for bringing support to the democracy movement in 
Tiananmen Square for support of the people of Hong Kong. Thanks 
to a strong outcry in Hong Kong, I was released after 3 days. 
And since that day, I devote my lifetime to work toward 
democratic changes in China as one of the leaders in the Hong 
Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement in 
China.
    After the passage of National Security Law, will people 
like me be tried in Hong Kong or handed over to China for trial 
because of our condemnation of Tiananmen Square massacre and 
our candlelight vigil every year, or the setting up of June 4th 
Museum, and our continued support for human rights in China? 
Will there be a fourth handover awaiting me?
    The new law just promulgated 11 p.m., 30th of June, 2020, 
is a complete destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong and 
threatens every aspect of freedom the people of Hong Kong enjoy 
under the International Human Rights Standard or the Basic Law.
    When I read through the detailed description of four 
methods to create a crime--subversion, secession, terrorism, 
and collusion with foreign powers--the net is spread very, very 
wide. And I believe in the drafting of law, what goes into the 
mind of the Chinese Communist Party is all the actions taken 
over the past protest movement. So they are so angry with the 
protest movement, so they come after it and try to criminalize 
actions in the past and try to cover it this time under the 
National Security Law, so that it can be a revenge against the 
people of Hong Kong for what they have done in the past years.
    To give you an example, you know, waving of foreign flags 
or flags for independence may come under the crime of 
secession. Actually, today on July 1st, there are already 
people, just because they waved something like the flag, and 
they, you know, they are arrested. And even the police have 
sort of now made a banner warning people that if you wave a 
flag or shout a slogan, you may be cast under the Law of 
Letters, the Law of Secession or Subversion.
    And, you know, other things also included in the law is to 
attack or damage Hong Kong government facilities randomly, and 
illegal dysfunction or severely interfere with the legal 
functioning of the State apparatus by violence or illegal 
means, can be caught by subversion. And with no apology, we do 
not like to see damage of government facilities. But is that 
subversion?
    Or damaging public transport can fall under terrorism. And 
collusion with foreign power through illegal means and 
promotion of hatred toward the central government. You know, no 
one wants to promote hatred. We just want freedom.
    Or severely draft the Hong Kong government or the central 
government from implementation of laws and policy with serious 
consequences. So collusion will include drafting of policy?
    So the law will--and also enforcement of the law, the law 
will be enforced by National Security Agency with personnel 
from China and Hong Kong, with a special unit of the Hong Kong 
Police, and the power to search, conduct secret surveillance, 
interception of communications which actually, you know, 
everyone know this is the operation of like the secret police.
    And applying this law in Hong Kong, many people have asked 
where did Hong Kong Alliance, you know, our organization, find 
this platform of end to one-party rule/State, or our past 
support of human rights defender in China seems to be 
subversion. And people of Hong Kong shout a slogan: Down with 
Carrie Lam or defund the police. And they call it subverting 
the Hong Kong government?
    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Yan.
    Mr. Lee. With the media reporting the----
    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Yan.
    Mr. Lee [continuing]. Aiding and abetting. Yes? Oh, sorry.
    Mr. Sherman. Your 5 minutes is expired. If you could give 
us one or two----
    Mr. Lee. OK, sorry.
    Mr. Sherman [continuing]. Just a couple of sentences, then 
I need to move on to the next witness.
    Mr. Lee. OK. So with the destruction of One Country, Two 
Systems and rule of law in this case, rule of fear, Hong 
Kongers now have to learn and survive in a very, very 
suppressive environment. And still, we must maintain the will 
to resist. And for us, we will continue our past activities and 
not be deterred by the new authoritarian law. We will fight on 
for freedom and democracy.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I now recognize Professor Petersen 
for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF CAROLE J. PETERSEN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, WILLIAM S. 
 RICHARDSON SCHOOL OF LAW, GRADUATE CHAIR, MATSUNAGA INSTITUTE 
           FOR PEACE, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I AT MANOA

    Ms. Petersen. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this 
morning. I am testifying personally this morning and not on 
behalf of my university or any organization.
    I taught law in Hong Kong from 1989 to 2006. And I co-edit 
a book on the local government's first attempt to enact 
national security legislation. Although I now teach in Hawaii, 
I continue to visit Hong Kong for research. And I have spent 
most of my academic career writing about Hong Kong.
    My initial written testimony submitted 2 days ago was based 
on the limited summary of the law that had been published at 
that point. Now that the actual law has been published, I have 
no doubt that it violated China's obligations under the Sino-
British Joint Declaration.
    The Joint Declaration makes it clear that Hong Kong is to 
operate a separate criminal justice system. It shall maintain 
its common law legal system, control criminal prosecutions free 
from any interference, and exercise independent judicial power. 
Unfortunately, this law destroys that firewall. It allows 
mainland Chinese security personnel to operate openly in Hong 
Kong, and in some cases to remove individuals entirely from the 
protections of Hong Kong's legal system.
    As Mr. Lee said, it establishes numerous institutions in 
Hong Kong, which will be directly under the authority of the 
Chinese central authorities.
    The Office for Safeguarding National Security will be 
functioning in Hong Kong to collect and analyze information, to 
guide, coordinate, support, and generally supervise all of the 
relevant authorities in the Hong Kong government.
    Although Article 50 States that the staff shall abide by 
Hong Kong laws, there is no mechanism for enforcing local laws 
against them. They are subject to national supervisory 
authorities only, and not to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong 
SAR.
    There will also be a special branch of the police and a 
special branch of the prosecution authority. And they will be 
primarily accountable to the central authorities.
    If these mechanisms do not give Beijing enough control, it 
can also take complete jurisdiction over a case and remove it 
from Hong Kong's legal system under Article 55. The conditions 
that allow for this to happen are very broad, and there are 
very limited procedures. A simple request from the chief 
executive, which she will surely give if directed to do so, can 
be approved by the central government.
    At that point Hong Kong's legal system simply does not 
apply. The mainland Chinese criminal procedure will take over, 
and the person will be prosecuted and tried under mainland law, 
presumably in the mainland.
    The extensive involvement of China's central security 
officials in the enforcement of this law is particularly 
worrying when we combine it with the broadly defined offenses. 
Time does not allow me to explore them all with you today, but 
one example is ``Collusion with a Foreign Country.`` That is 
defined so broadly that if a person merely testifies today and 
asks a foreign government to impose sanctions, that could be 
considered a violation of Article 29(4).
    Moreover, it applies regardless of whether you are a Hong 
Kong national or a Hong Kong resident. Anyone can be prosecuted 
so long as they commit the offense in Hong Kong, or the 
consequences of the act occur in Hong Kong.
    For individuals who are permanent residents of Hong Kong--
and thousands of American citizens are in that category--the 
coverage of the law is even broader. If a permanent resident of 
Hong Kong who is now living in the U.S. merely requests 
sanctions against Hong Kong or China, that person could be held 
criminally liable, even if the requested sanctions were never 
ordered. Moreover, if a person wanted to prosecute that person 
in the mainland, it might decide to invoke Article 55.
    The remainder of my testimony discusses a number of vague 
provisions in the law and raises the question of who will be 
interpreting it. We do know that the NPC Standing Committee has 
the power, the overriding power to interpret vague clauses, but 
the law is silent as to whether the courts of Hong Kong also 
have the power to interpret the law. This is significant 
because the courts of Hong Kong will probably try to interpret 
this law to comply with the ICCPR, so long as there are no 
direct conflicts.
    Where there is a direct conflict, then this law will 
prevail. And that means that China will be in breach of its 
obligation under the Sino-British Joint Declaration to ensure 
that the ICCPR continues to be enforced in Hong Kong.
    One of the examples of a clear conflict is Article 42, 
which says that no bail shall be granted unless the judge has 
sufficient grounds for believing that the criminal suspect or 
defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national 
security. Not only does this violate Article 9 of the ICCPR, 
but it also violates the presumption of innocence because it 
assumes that the person has already committed acts threatening 
national security.
    These and other conflicts with protected human rights 
violate the commitments that China made under the Sino-British 
Joint Declaration. Incidentally, the U.N. Human Rights 
Committee will be reviewing Hong Kong's compliance with the 
ICCPR beginning this summer when the fourth periodic report is 
reviewed. Traditionally----
    Mr. Sherman. Professor.
    Ms. Petersen. Yes. I will finish.
    Mr. Sherman. Professor, it appears that you--just sum up in 
a couple of sentences please.
    Ms. Petersen. Certainly. Traditionally, the review process 
before the U.N. Human Rights Committee includes extensive 
shadow reports filed by non-governmental organizations. 
However, this year I fear that NGO's will be afraid to file 
those shadow reports for the fear that just asking the U.N. 
Human Rights Committee to declare that there has been a 
violation of the ICCPR might bring about the threat of criminal 
prosecution.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Professor Petersen.
    We now recognize Mr. Nathan Law. Mr. Law? There seems to be 
a technical difficulty. Can we unmute Mr. Law?
    At this point I am going to go on to our fourth witness and 
then try to circle back to Mr. Law. We have Brian Leung who is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF BRIAN LEUNG, PH.D. CANDIDATE, UNIVERSITY OF 
                           WASHINGTON

    Mr. Leung. Congressman Sherman, Ranking Member McCaul, and 
members of this committee, I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to address the critical development in Hong Kong, 
and also thank Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Smith for the 
opening statements.
    China's NPCSC has unilaterally imposed a national security 
law on Hong Kong, which I submit fundamentally breaches the 
Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. There is no 
longer a meaningful distinction between the system of Hong Kong 
and that of China.
    The legal firewall between two places has been utterly 
dismantled. The Chinese party-State has engulfed our government 
system. Our civil society is under full assault and is pervaded 
by a sense of political fear, self-censorship, and legal 
persecution. We have to reckon with the reality that China 
itself has relegated One Country, Two Systems to the dust of 
history.
    It is perhaps instructive to situate the enactment of the 
law in the first anniversary of the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill 
Movement. On this very day last year, I read out, on behalf of 
the protesters, a statement that crystalized the ``five 
demands`` of the movement inside the Legislative Council.
    Rather than responding to those very modest demands, the 
Chinese and Hong Kong governments have chosen to ramp up their 
relentless repression, continue its isolation of Hong Kong from 
the world, and ultimately, the self-destruction of One Country, 
Two Systems.
    Since last year, 9,000 protesters have been arrested; 600 
of them are being charged with rioting. The police continue to 
be unaccountable, and instead see their budget increased by 25 
percent compared to last year. These trends of gross violation 
of civil liberties will only worsen under the new National 
Security Law, which I will explain.
    Above all, the supposedly withdrawn Extradition Bill has 
now morphed into a Chinese agency set up in Hong Kong capable 
of extraditing defendants to China. And the Chinese Communist 
Party has muffled the public outcry for full democratization 
that is guaranteed in the Basic Law, and now respond with a 
resounding assertion of the party dominance inside Hong Kong's 
judicial and political system.
    In this light, the grave dangers of the new National 
Security Law are not limited to its legal ramifications. The 
new criminal offenses will no doubt be used as legal weapons 
against dissidents and send them to life prison. No one in Hong 
Kong can be certain about their legal definitions. And in fact, 
their different definitions will remain forever elusive as the 
National People's Congress has the sole authority to interpret 
the law, strike down any conflicting local legislation, and 
Beijing can advise our chief executive to hand pick judges to 
adjudicate cases according to the party line.
    But the newly enacted law is also about institutionally 
asserting the party's dominance in Hong Kong. The NPC 
forcefully inserted the National Security Law into our legal 
system. Not only has the local legislature been completely 
circumvented, even our top local officials were utterly 
clueless about the details of the law. Hong Kong people ruling 
Hong Kong, as part of the original formulation of One Country, 
Two Systems, proved to be a mirage.
    More importantly, a set of parallel institutions will be 
set up and funnel the influence of the CCP into Hong Kong. 
First and foremost, the ``Office of National Security 
Commissioner`` will be established in Hong Kong and will 
directly report to the Communist Party and Xi Jinping himself. 
Not bound by the Basic Law, this office is vested with the 
power to supervise and guide the Hong Kong government with 
jurisdiction over the cases pertaining to national security.
    This jurisdiction involves the power to extradite 
defendants to China where there is no respected rule of law. It 
constitutes a fundamental intrusion to our judicial 
independence that is the cornerstone of One Country, Two 
Systems.
    This set of parallel organs marks the institutionalization 
of the CCP's dominance over our political and judicial systems, 
as national security becomes the springboard for the CCP to 
tighten its grip, normalize its secretive operations, and 
extradite people to China. And what we are witnessing is the 
crumbling of One Country, Two Systems.
    Since last year's movement, I have been asked numerous 
times, is the fight worth it, given the tremendous sacrifice 
borne by Hong Kong people for such an almost irreparable 
system? In fact, many young protesters have to make the same 
distressing decision that I had to, which is either be 
imprisoned for life, or to be exiled and forced to seek refuge 
elsewhere, maybe possibly never seeing a chance of safe return.
    But my answer is always this: once we have tasted and 
breathed freedom, we can never be forced to kneel again. The 
false promise of partial freedom often made by the CCP will 1 
day devolve into no freedom at all, as the case of Hong Kong 
well illustrates. What is happening in Hong Kong will soon 
spill over to the world. And that is why I believe the United 
States must hold China accountable for its continuous 
encroachment on Hong Kong's autonomy and freedom. China should 
not be allowed to disregard its international obligations while 
benefiting from Hong Kong's special economic status.
    We must act now to add considerable pressure on China, 
including the use of range of instruments provided by the new 
Hong Kong Autonomy Act just passed, and to provide substantive 
assistance to Hong Kong protesters, such as favorable 
immigration and refugee policy, or it may soon be too late.
    So thank you. And I welcome any questions.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Leung.
    And now we will see if we can hear from Mr. Nathan Law, 
whether we have got the technology working.
    Mr. Law. Hello. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Sherman. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Law. Hello. Is it working?

STATEMENT OF NATHAN LAW, FORMER HONG KONG COUNCIL MEMBER, YALE 
                           UNIVERSITY

    Mr. Law. Yes, thank you very much. Sorry about the 
technical issues.
    Thank you, Chairman, and all the members of the committee 
inviting me to this hearing. In a little over 1 year I have 
testified twice on Capitol Hill regarding the situation in Hong 
Kong: first before the CCP in May 2019, and then before the 
Pacific and East Asian Subcommittee of the SSRC in September 
2019. Both times I did not have to worry about going back to 
Hong Kong afterwards to continue my street activism.
    But this time is different. Merely speaking about the 
plight of Hong Kongers on an occasion like this contradicts the 
new National Security Law. Under this legislation Beijing just 
passed 24 hours ago, anyone who would dare to speak up would 
likely face imprisonment once Beijing targeted you. So much is 
now lost in the city I love: the freedom to tell the truth.
    In typical Chinese fashion, none of us knew what was in the 
bill until it was actually effective, which had left us very 
anxious. Now that we can finally read it, we are far from 
assured. In addition to closed trials in Hong Kong, or even the 
possibility of extradition to China, offenders could be barred 
from bails and a jury trial, with their rights trampled on 
during interrogation.
    The Beijing-appointed chief executive has absolute power to 
determine whether an act constitutes a violation of national 
security, whether any information constitutes State secrets, 
and whether covert surveillance, like wiretapping, can be 
deployed.
    Judges assigned to handle these cases must pass prior 
screening by the Chinese Communist Party. One absurd clause 
even dictates that inciting hatred toward either the Hong Kong 
or Chinese Government is illegal, terms so vague that they can 
easily be abused and the whole set of law left so much room for 
interpretation.
    Directly funded by Beijing, a new Hong Kong-based national 
security agency will have sweeping power requiring the 
cooperation of all local government departments. We used to 
think of secret police as something abstract; now it is a very 
real fear. The kind of cross-border action that Beijing once 
had to hide, such as the Causeway Bay Books publisher incident, 
may well become a new legalized norm. China is in claiming de 
facto direct rule of Hong Kong, in clear violation of the 1984 
Sino-British Joint Declaration that promised One Country, Two 
Systems.
    Even before the National Security Law, the price of 
resistance in Hong Kong has always been high. I have been--I 
have seen far too many young faces beaten, detained, tortured, 
prosecuted, and jailed just for protesting our basic human 
rights. Over 9,000 arrests have been made in protests over the 
past year alone.
    There have also been numerous incidents of mystery suicide 
deaths. Still against these odds, brave Hong Kongers keep the 
movement alive for the sake of our future generations, as well 
as a more democratic world free from the threats of Chinese 
imperialism and expansionism.
    The British flag lowered for the last time and the Chinese 
flag rose for the first time on this very date 23 years ago in 
Hong Kong. While its people were understandably worried in 
1997, there was at least a sense of optimism that, given the 
success of our city, people could contribute positively to the 
rise of China, which would in turn embrace freedom and 
democratize. This came to be a little more than wishful 
thinking.
    Over time, China has not followed Hong Kong's lead, but 
has, in fact, made Hong Kong more like itself, erasing our 
unique way of life, while reaping the economic benefits we 
provide.
    Perhaps the National Security Law reveals the true nature 
of what Beijing thought One Country, Two Systems was all along, 
comprehensive autocratic control. Increasingly we have seen 
Chinese leaders less and less willing to honor the One Country, 
Two Systems part, while more stressing on the dominance of one 
country. They have shown no regard for the separation of powers 
and democratic accountability, which are long taken for granted 
by Hong Kongers, and enshrined in the Basic Law.
    Through fear, intimidation, and heavy-handed governance, 
Beijing turned Hong Kong into just another Chinese city while 
trying to keep its outer shell. In doing so, it helped to 
preserve the illusion that the city is still autonomous.
    The international community must not be confused. Carrie 
Lam and her entire cabinet are puppets who have no power to 
make meaningful decisions. The high degree of autonomy once 
promised is just another blatant lie.
    It takes decades, if not longer, to build a city, but it 
takes just weeks to destroy it. This is what we have all seen 
lately. What now lies ahead of us is not just the personal 
safety of my friend Joshua, or other leading oppositional 
figures like Martin Lee and Jimmy Lai, but the survival of Hong 
Kong as an idea.
    Therefore, it is vital that while our friends in the 
international community, including----
    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Law.
    Mr. Law [continuing]. Policymakers in Washington, do not 
pretend that everything is still normal, they do not look away. 
Even though this----
    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Law.
    Mr. Law [continuing]. Could be conceived as a violation of 
the National Security Law, I wish to say it out loud on behalf 
of my beloved Hong Kong people.
    [Speaking Cantonese.]
    Let's keep fighting in different sectors. And I wish Hong 
Kong and all of the world the very best.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you for your testimony. And I want to 
thank our witnesses not only for their testimony, but given the 
risk of Chinese retaliation, I want to thank them for their 
courage.
    I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each. And 
pursuant to House rules, all time is yielded for the purposes 
of questioning our witnesses. Because of the hybrid format of 
this hearing, I will recognize members of the committee by 
seniority, alternating between Democrats and Republicans, 
although I will first recognize the Speaker.
    If you miss your turn, please let our staff know, and we 
will come back to you. If you seek recognition, you must unmute 
your microphone and address us verbally. I will start by 
recognizing the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    Speaker Pelosi. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am 
going to yield back to you so we can hear questions from the 
members. But, again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 
be here.
    I spend--Mr. Smith and I talk about the 30 years that we 
have worked together on this issue, but we always want to be 
current--and I spend about an hour a day on China issues to be 
current, none of them more valuable than the one I just spent 
here hearing what is happening in Hong Kong in terms of this 
law.
    The concern that I have, which there may not be an answer 
to here--we will see--is does this law, is it retroactive? Will 
they go back to any flying of flags or making of statements, or 
is it from now forward, which would be horrible enough? But 
that is a fear that I have.
    I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Lee, Ms. Petersen, Mr. 
Leung, and Nathan once again. And again he has courageously 
testified. And say to them that I think the highest compliment 
they could receive is to see this is an overflow crowd of 
Democrats and Republicans in this committee honoring the 
spatial distance, overflowing into the audience. This is quite 
remarkable and a real expression of this bipartisan concern 
that we have for democracy, democratic reform, and the so-
called--no, I do not want to identify it by the name they use 
because it does not have to do with security, it has to do with 
repression.
    But I thank all of you for turning out for this because 
when we talk to the people of Hong Kong about what they want to 
see from us, they want to see our support. This committee in a 
bipartisan way has done that very significantly.
    So with that, I thank you for the opportunity to spend my 
very valuable hour here to hear our witnesses and to compliment 
you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. Thank you 
all.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you for being here, Mrs. Madam Speaker. 
That demonstrates a lot to the world.
    And as you point out, although this room does not look 
full, we have limits on how many members are allowed to be in 
the room, and virtually all the other members are participating 
virtually.
    With that, I am going to recognize the ranking member for 
his questions and then I will go on to the others members.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam 
Speaker, for honoring us with your presence.
    Speaker Pelosi. You are welcome.
    Mr. McCaul. That is how important this issue is to all of 
us. I guess, you know, my first question, I met with the 
secretary. He did decertify the autonomous nature of Hong Kong. 
They are, the Chinese Communist Party is in violation of the 
Sino-U.K. treaty. And my question to both Mr. Leung and to 
Professor Petersen, in addition to the sanctions that I believe 
are forthcoming under the law that we passed in Congress, what 
else could be done to remedy and address the violation of this 
historic treaty?
    Mr. Law. Well I think--yes, thank you for the question--I 
think it is important for us to understand the implementation 
of National Security Law is not just about a piece of law, but 
is confirmation that Beijing for now they are openly and 
blatantly to repressive order, suppression of human rights.
    So I think the international community should enact 
mechanisms to hold them accountable because that is what they 
are going to do, they are going to erase the unique culture of 
Hong Kong and also all the human rights protections now we have 
had. And while there are hundreds of thousands of people 
flowing down to the street today in protest of the 
implementation of the National Security Law, and we have 
already seen there are lots of obvious human rights violations 
afterwards the implementation of the National Security Law.
    So I think the international community, while other than 
these sanctions which are very difficult, well to hold it 
together, but I think we need a new guiding principle going 
against the expansionist China, which we have to hold them 
accountable in whatever human rights violations happen inside 
their border.
    So I think this is what the international community should 
do, and should do it jointly.
    Mr. McCaul. And I agree with you. Professor Petersen. 
Obviously, you----
    Ms. Petersen. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. McCaul. Yes. Go ahead.
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you for the question. First, I do want 
to respond to the Speaker's question. You are correct, the law 
is not retroactive. There were rumors that it might be, but it 
will not be. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that 
actions taken before the law went into force may contribute to 
decisions to target people for investigations or prosecution.
    Regarding what can be done, I would like to suggest that we 
focus on the United Nations and the international community as 
a whole, because I do think it is important that we try to 
avoid things that could hurt the Hong Kong people, and try to 
focus more on the international human rights monitoring 
mechanisms.
    And that is why I was mentioning in my testimony that the 
Human Rights Committee will be reviewing Hong Kong's report 
under the ICCPR, commencing this summer with a list of issues, 
and going on into 2021.
    I do think that the international community can help 
participate in that. And although China likes often to react 
badly to international monitoring, the truth is that the 
Chinese Government voluntarily agreed to this process when it 
agreed that the ICCPR would continue to apply to Hong Kong, and 
that Hong Kong would continue to report to the U.N. Human 
Rights Committee. So that committee, and also the U.N. Human 
Rights Council, and the other expert mechanisms in the United 
Nations I do think can help to shine a light on violations of 
the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Thank you.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you. And I think that is our next course 
of action. I see Chairman Engel has arrived. And with that, I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Engel [presiding]. Good morning, everyone. I 
apologize for running a little behind this morning.
    Let me thank the Honorable Speaker for having joined us 
today. Her presence underscores the importance of this issue. 
She has always been in the forefront of this issue. We have had 
many, many discussions about Hong Kong.
    And as we look to the uncertain future of Hong Kong's 
autonomy and democratic system, we see that our Speaker has 
been a tireless champion of human rights, for the rights of the 
people of Hong Kong and China.
    So thank you to our witnesses as well for your, for your 
time this morning. And thank you to Mr. McCaul, our ranking 
member, and other members of the committee.
    As the Chinese Government escalates its aggression toward 
Hong Kong, I am proud that the Congress has spoken again with a 
bipartisan voice, again and again in support of the people of 
Hong Kong, in support of their struggle to preserve their 
rights, rights that have been guaranteed by treaty and 
international law. But at the end of the day, it is the White 
House that sets policy. And I fear that our policy has gone 
astray, perhaps emboldening China.
    We should be focused on two major elements in our policy 
toward Hong Kong. One is: does it support autonomy and 
democracy in Hong Kong? And second, does it advance American 
interests?
    We hear lots of tough talk about Vietnam from the 
Administration, but I fear that months of this attitude of 
heaping praise on Xi, looking the other way as the Chinese 
Government violently cracked down on protests in Hong Kong, 
sidelining any concerns about human rights in the hopes of 
getting a good trade deal that has set the stage for what we 
are seeing today.
    Nothing the Beijing government does would surprise me, nor 
should it surprise anyone. And if there is one thing I think 
all Americans should be united on, it is this.
    I remember when the agreement was signed with the U.K. It 
was going to be two different types of government, one China 
but two different types, two systems. Of course, the Chinese 
Beijing Government does not abide by that at all. And did 
anybody ever think that they would?
    So let me say that one of the more unanticipated provisions 
in this National Security Law is Article 38, which States that 
the law applies to persons who are not permanent residents of 
Hong Kong and commit crimes under the law outside of Hong Kong. 
When combined with Beijing's increased use of hostage 
diplomacy, such as the case of the two impeached Canadians, 
this law could have far-reaching implications for anyone 
visiting Hong Kong, including U.S. persons who are studying, 
doing business, or working with government officials or 
diplomats.
    So how safe should I or any other American feel about 
visiting Hong Kong in the future? Many are talking about--OK. 
So let me have the witnesses respond, any of you who care to.
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I can 
respond to that. It is true that China intends to apply this 
law extra-territorially. And I do not think anyone should feel 
particularly safe, particularly not if you have been involved 
at all in any sort of campaign for sanctions or other actions 
against the Chinese Government or against Hong Kong. Because 
when you combine the provisions, Articles 36 to 39 together 
with Article 29, the definition of collusion with foreign 
forces, it creates an incredibly broad potential net for legal 
liability.
    So while I would have said up until a few years ago that 
Hong Kong is one of the safest places in the world to visit, 
because I lived there for 17 years and I always felt very safe, 
I do not think it is so safe for you to visit now. Thank you.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you, Chairman Engel. And I also would like 
to add on that.
    You know, Article 38 is certainly very clear that even if 
you have no Hong Kong residency and your conduct is conducted 
in, you know, places outside of Hong Kong, you will still be 
subject to the law. And I think it adds a lot of pressure on 
rights of journalists, academics, NGO's who might, you know, 
have criticized Chinese abuse of human rights before. And if 
they can come to Hong Kong for international conference or 
their daily operations, they could be subject to that law.
    So I think it is extremely draconian, sweeping. And I think 
the international community should be very concerned about this 
law.
    Mr. Lee. One more point to come in, yes. You know, as 
Carole and Kai-ping had already mentioned about that law 
applied to a person who is not yet permanent resident of the 
region. And I would want to also point out that apart from, you 
know, foreigners, you know, if mainland Chinese support Hong 
Kong, which in the past from the Umbrella Movement to the 
Process Movement, there are lots of, there are so many Chinese 
who are already objected by China. But now, you know, with this 
law passing also, the National Security Law will apply to, you 
know, mainland Chinese who try to support human rights in Hong 
Kong. So it is not just applying to, of course, foreigners, you 
know. So it is really catching on.
    Today, of course, our last Governor Chris Patten had made 
some statement about the National Security Law. And I was 
wondering actually, as the last Governor of Hong Kong can he 
come back to Hong Kong to visit us? No. Maybe he will be, you 
know, labeled as, you know, foreigner in collusion with foreign 
power, and then in breach of the National Security Law. So once 
he comes in, then he maybe have--he may have a problem.
    So this is really a very wide, you know, you know, 
application of law to anyone in the world. Or so, you know, 
anyone in the world can be caught by this law. This is a, you 
know, you can see the attitude of the Chinese Communist Party 
wanting to affect everyone.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much. Let me, let me ask you 
another question.
    Many are mentioning risks to personal safety for those who 
have been involved in the Hong Kong democracy movement from the 
days of the handover until now. Several of you speaking to us 
today have repeatedly put yourselves at great personal risk. 
You are very courageous. And I really take my hat off to you.
    We have seen announcements in the United Kingdom and in 
Taiwan regarding safe havens for Hong Kongers. So my question 
is: what can the United States do, steps to ensure that we are 
doing our part to welcome those in Hong Kong who face 
persecution under these new laws?
    Mr. Law. Well, thank you for your question, Chairman Engel.
    And first of all I would like to express my gratitude. I 
understand that the U.S. Government has also proposed a safe 
boat plan for lots of human rights defenders in Hong Kong, 
including those who could have been indicted or have criminal 
records regarding the protesters. I think this is indeed a 
great way to support Hong Kong protesters on the ground.
    For Hong Kong people, well, one thing I would like to 
mention is that after the day implementing the National 
Security Law, that day, there were more than 100,000 people 
marching down to the street facing extreme, extremely high risk 
and, well, police brutality, and also the risk of being 
imprisoned for more than 10 years, on the street, and then to 
challenge Hong Kong in support of freedom and democracy.
    I think this fearless, fearless attitude toward the 
autocracy is, well, very admirable. And I think not only 
offering safe boat plan for these people, but also we should, 
the international community should join hands to implement more 
and more mechanics to hold China accountable, so that we could 
let those people fighting on the ground feel more safe, and let 
the Chinese Government be more scared to implement more, well, 
draconian, draconian execution of these laws again.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you, Chairman. If I may speak on the issue 
in addition to Nathan. I think it is a reality that we have to 
face. Some of the best and brightest Hong Kong protesters, 
intellectuals, academics, had to flee the city because of their 
involvement in the democracy movement since 2019. It is very 
saddening and it is unfortunate that many people are forced to 
seek refuge elsewhere, but it is a reality that we have to 
face.
    Many of my friends, myself included, have to make that same 
tough decision.
    So, I know that in America now two bills has been proposed, 
have been proposed. The first is Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act, and 
the other one is Hong Kong Freedom and Choice Act. Those will 
provide the immediate refugee safe boat policy to Hong Kong 
people. I think those will be a very good mechanism to ensure 
the safety of those who are really in danger and in great need.
    So, I think those acts, I hope that they will be passed 
soon and will, you know, create much more discussion around the 
human rights abuse situation in Hong Kong. Think about Hong 
Kong as an international financial city that produced a 
generation of exiles, a generation of political refugees. This 
is unacceptable. But we need to help them.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
    Anyone else care to answer the question?
    If not, then we will go to Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Chris.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
for calling this important and extraordinarily timely hearing.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses. And thank you, Mr. Lee 
and Mr. Nathan Law, for the tremendous sacrifices you have made 
years to date, and the risk that you face now.
    You know, just a couple of points. You know, unless Xi 
Jinping reverses course, I think everyone has to be on notice 
in the world that every treaty obligation, including those with 
the WTO, that China has added its name to, its voice, its 
signature, are worthless. They made solemn, solemn obligations, 
freely entered into, and now they are breaking it with 
impunity.
    You know, we often talk about the rule of law. In China it 
is the rule of unjust law.
    And I would say to Ms. Petersen--and I thank you for your 
testimony--your point on the retroactive, because I was 
thinking that as well, I think that is a technical omission in 
the law. Nothing, nothing precludes this dictatorship from 
looking back and holding people to account. It is just their 
way.
    Let me just ask a couple of questions.
    One, do you have a sense that the world will unite, 
particularly world leaders? There needs to be, I think, a very 
serious sanctions regime.
    You know, mention was made about the Secretary of State. He 
did, on May 27th, pursuant to the Hong Kong Human Rights and 
Democracy Act language, make a--he made a very strong statement 
that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under 
U.S. law in the same manner as before its handover. Of course, 
that is because of the autonomy issue as well as human rights.
    He Stated that the Administration could eliminate different 
and special treatment for Hong Kong, including export controls 
on dual-use technologies and more.
    And then a month later, on June 26th, Secretary Pompeo 
announced the imposition of visa restrictions, which we all 
were calling for, for those Chinese officials who are 
undermining the high degree of autonomy as guaranteed in the 
1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
    Obviously, more now has to be done that they have pulled 
the trigger. My hope is that they will revisit it. Maybe our 
witnesses could speak to whether or not they think there is any 
possibility of that. But I would hope that the people around Xi 
Jinping realize that he has--he is dishonoring the Communist 
Party, he is dishonoring the Government of China. When all the 
world can see in the light of day that they make a--they give 
their word and they break it, and they break it with impunity. 
And that is exactly what they are doing right now.
    I would also ask our witnesses, maybe they want to speak to 
corporations. Obviously, the reach of this law is far beyond 
just people physically residing in Hong Kong. They have put 
language in this decree, this law, that reaches beyond that.
    And let me just say there are a lot of members of this 
House and Senate--I was briefed by the FBI--I am a target. That 
is what they did, they put this out and I am a target, whatever 
that means. And I think that this campaign of intimidation 
against the world, against people, especially the Hong Kongers, 
we need to meet this as never before.
    We didn't do it after Tiananmen Square. George Herbert 
Walker Bush didn't do it, nor did Bill Clinton. We acquiesced. 
And they took note of that and said, you know, give it a little 
time and people will just let it go.
    And I think, as the Speaker pointed out before, there are a 
whole lot of us on both sides of the aisle who really realize 
the nefarious nature of this dictatorship, and we need to 
really draw that line. And, hopefully, there are some people 
within the Xi Jinping government who will say, wait a minute, 
time out, you have gone too far, President Xi. You are doing it 
with genocide against the Uyghurs, as we all talked about, and 
now you are doing it here.
    So, if any of the witnesses would like to speak to any of 
those points.
    And let me just say to Nathan Law--you said do not look 
away. We will not look away. We will further engage.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you, Congressman.
    I think, first--again, we have talked about the Article 38. 
That is explicitly an intimidation against the global community 
who are speaking up on Hong Kong. That is the first.
    And the second one I think it is important to recognize CCP 
strategy of political control is always about 
compartmentalizing politics that, you know, assuring the 
business community you should not concern yourself with 
politics. You will not be affected by the new law.
    But just recently, HSBC and Standard Charter, the two 
biggest banks in Hong Kong, were forced to kowtow explicitly to 
the National Security Law and show the partition between 
business and politics is only a political expediency in the 
eyes of China. And it can always resort and force the business 
community to obey this law or to align themselves with the 
party interests.
    So, I think it is really important to send a message that 
we should not fall into the divide and conquer tactic by CCP. 
So that is why I think not only U.S. has to take a much tougher 
position, you also have to unite different nations in the 
world, such as the EU, which is the biggest exporter of China, 
or United Nations, different platforms that Professor Petersen 
mentioned.
    So I think we have to come up with a counter united front 
to China's own united front that wants to conquer and divide 
the world.
    Chairman Engel. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mr. Lee, on May 29th Trump announced that there would be 
targeted sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials, but 
he didn't provide any names or lists. They are just an illusion 
at this point.
    As you may be aware I, along with the ranking member of the 
Asia Subcommittee, Mr. Yoho, introduced a House version of the 
Hong Kong Autonomy Act, introduced in the Senate by Senators 
Toomey and Van Hollen to impose mandatory sanctions on entities 
that violate China's obligations to Hong Kong under the Joint 
Declaration and the Basic Law, and also the banks that do 
business with them.
    What are Hong Kongers' positions on the U.S. implementing 
targeted sanctions, particularly targeted visa bans, in light 
of the National Security Law decision?
    Mr. Lee?
    Mr. Lee. Yes, thank you.
    I will fall into the--let me read the article on collusion 
of foreign power. You know, I will fall into that, but 
definitely for our perspective. I think this is the problem 
now. You know, with that law in place, when you read through 
the law, you know, and anything, you know, suggesting anything 
to the international community maybe, you know, sort of catch 
you as collusion of foreign power.
    And one of the things that is very specifically tied into 
that is to some of, you know, that article, that article on 
this inviting sanctions. I think that is exactly, you know, 
once they really have in light of what has happened in the past 
and they were fighting, you know, strong people of Hong Kong, 
or anyone in the world from sanctioning of the Chinese 
Communist Party.
    So, I think I have to be, have wisdom to how to, you know, 
go about in the future to support Hong Kong.
    But one thing I want to mention is that when you look at 
the special United Nations mechanism, usually that is a very 
powerful United Nations Special Rapporteur, and join together 
on a joint statement on China and Hong Kong.
    Mr. Sherman. I am going to ask you to wrap it up.
    Mr. Lee. And so they are suggesting also that there----
    Mr. Sherman. I do need to go on to another question.
    Mr. Lee [continuing]. Will be a Special Rapporteur on Hong 
Kong and China.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Taiwan--I will build on the 
comments of our chair, Mr. Engel, as he points out that Taiwan 
and the United Kingdom are talking about opening their doors to 
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Hong Kongers. We want 
freedom for Hong Kong, not immigration from Hong Kong. But we 
have to deal with the practical situation as it stands.
    I will be joining our colleagues Mr. Curtis and Mr. Castro 
in introducing House--introducing in the House the Hong Kong 
Safe Harbor Act to designate Hong Kongers as Priority 2 
refugees. This is necessary because Priority 2 allows the 
individuals to access our refugee system without going through 
the UNHCR, which does not have an office in Hong Kong, and does 
not without a referral from an NGO that China could block.
    Do Hong Kongers generally support the effort to make it 
easier for Hong Kongers to be classified as Priority 2 
refugees? I wonder if Mr. Law could answer that question.
    Mr. Law. Well, thank you for the question.
    I think it is important for us to provide a way out, not 
only for the ordinary protesters but for those who have been 
heavily targeted. And especially under the National Security 
Law that people who may face lifelong imprisonment, the 
political, the targeted individuals, they are likely, well, the 
assistance for them are likely needed.
    So, I think for now, yes, indeed it is valuable offering 
helping hand to them, that would be a better result for them. 
And they are not necessarily leaving, but at least they are 
offered choices for them to make, and for them that will ease 
other sources of their pressure.
    Mr. Sherman. I would point out that political activists 
from China dedicated to freedom have had a major and positive 
impact on the world, including, of course, Mr. Sun Yat-sen.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our 
guests.
    The first question I think I have is regarding the 
agreement for people that are unfamiliar with maybe the 
specific tenets and the text of the agreement. What are, since 
obviously China and the Communist Party in Beijing have decided 
that they are not going to honor any of the commitments in the 
agreement, what are, if any, the remedies?
    And before you answer, before anybody answers, I will just 
remind everybody that is listening, watching, that breathes the 
breath, this is the reason that you do not make agreements with 
nations or criminal organizations that have no intent on 
maintaining their side of the bargain that are known liars, 
organizations and countries like North Korea, like Iran, like 
China, like Russia. This is why you do not make agreements with 
them, you demand action and then you have a reaction to their 
action.
    But, with that, what are the remedies?
    Mr. Lee. May I comment? Yes, the question about the Sino-
British Joint Declaration, I think in that particular situation 
it was registered with the United Nations. But one problem with 
the whole Joint Declaration is that they do not have any so-
called remedy for a violation.
    No mention of the European Parliament resolution when you 
read through the text. There is one particular text that says 
that encourages the member States to go to the International 
Court of Justice and to seek remedies over the breaching of the 
Sino Joint British Joint Declaration. But, of course, this is a 
suggestion.
    But whether legally you can do that we still do not know. 
And, of course, I say the U.K. Government has the 
responsibility to make sure that the Sino Joint British Joint 
Declaration that they agree on should be respected. And now 
when it is breached, what they--they should be the ones that 
really, you know, go to United Nations and ask for respect of 
the Joint Declaration.
    But we hope that we will see something in the future about 
the Sino Joint British Joint Declaration.
    Ms. Petersen. Can I add something to that?
    Mr. Lee is correct that there is no clause in the Sino-
British Joint Declaration providing for dispute resolution. But 
the General Assembly of the United Nations can always seek an 
advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. And 
there is nothing that China could do to prevent them seeking 
that non-binding advisory opinion as long as the majority of 
the General Assembly voted to seek it.
    Just recently in 2019 the ICJ issued an advisory opinion on 
whether decolonization was lawfully completed with respect to 
the Chagos Islands. And although the U.K. wasn't very happy 
that that request was made, it was made because a majority of 
the General Assembly voted for it.
    Now, even though advisory opinions are non-binding, they 
can be very influential. And I think even a campaign to seek a 
vote in the General Assembly, to seek that advisory opinion 
would put some pressure on the Chinese Government to be a 
little more careful about living up to the letter of the Sino-
British Joint Declaration.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Perry. Hey, I sure appreciate your comments. And I have 
got a news flash for everybody: public pressure and opinions, 
non-binding, et cetera, have, as you can see, little effect on 
the Communist Chinese Party. So, that is all just tilting at 
windmills, in my opinion.
    But let me ask this question: with the advent of this 
security law in Hong Kong, what are the ramifications of this 
for--what do you see the ramifications for Taiwan?
    Mr. Leung. Obviously--first, I thank you for the question. 
Obviously, the law actually applies to Hong Kong residents, 
including Taiwanese residents. And there, on the one hand they 
have been very active in supporting for Hong Kong. On the other 
hand, their long pursuit of democracy is also branded 
subversion of the State power. Right?
    So, I think it also will be a very good signal about how 
China will actually treat Taiwan, given if Taiwan were 1 day to 
be succumbed to the so-called One Country, Two Systems. Right? 
So, I think it shows how ambitious China will be 1 day once you 
fall into their agreement, that they would not honor, as you 
point out.
    And I think, you know, it may shift the discussion, you 
know, what is happening in Hong Kong, will shift tremendously 
the discussion in Taiwan that they know that the CCP is not 
trustworthy, and their so-called political arrangement, high 
degree of autonomy, et cetera, et cetera, are mere lies.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The National Security Law that Beijing drafted in secrecy 
and imposed on Hong Kongers will be swiftly used to suppress. 
Fact of the matter, it is already happening.
    I woke up this morning to reports that the police in Hong 
Kong have made at least one arrest today of a demonstrator for 
``violating the National Security Law.''
    As I read the testimony of our witnesses this morning I 
felt a deep connection to the struggle for democracy described. 
I would be remiss if I didn't say right here in America I am 
part of the continued struggle of Black Americans to realize 
the promise of democracy in this great nation. And I can 
identify with the lifelong nature of this kind of struggle.
    It is because of the history and present challenges for my 
community in America that I know we both care deeply about what 
happens in Hong Kong. History has shown us that the push for 
freedom, equality, and human rights, is always connected 
anywhere it exists.
    It reminds me of the words of Dr. King when he said, 
``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' And 
while I thank this committee and the House of Representatives 
for standing up, I am so deeply disappointed in the faltering 
of the White House when it comes to its U.S. global standing.
    This is a moment for strong U.S. leadership. But it is also 
a moment where the President's geopolitical failures are 
emboldening China and other nations that now seek to press 
their agenda unchecked. It is no coincidence that China has 
chosen this point in time to blatantly disregard commitments it 
made decades ago to grant Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy.
    Congress has given the Trump Administration the tools to 
address Chinese human rights violations. We have shown strong 
bipartisan support for Hong Kong and the resolve to hold China 
accountable. Instead of using these authorities, the President 
of the United States chose early on to praise Beijing's 
handling of protests in Hong Kong and did worse than nothing as 
the China Government vigorously oppressed the Uyghurs.
    As I have traveled to meet with world leaders since the 
45th President of United States took office, I have heard 
resounding concern about the increasingly erratic nature of 
American foreign policy. Our closest allies continue to see 
this as a problem. But others see it as an opportunity.
    China has emboldened to take the actions it has in Hong 
Kong, just as it is similarly emboldened on its borders with 
India, in the South China Sea, and increasingly to pressure 
Taiwan.
    So, with that I ask, Ms. Petersen, in what ways can the 
United States redeem its credibility and work with the global 
community to get China to honor its international commitment? 
And what role, if any, can multilateral organizations play in 
this inflection point--at this inflection point? Ms. Petersen.
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you very much for that question.
    We could start by becoming more active in the U.N. human 
rights monitoring mechanisms, particularly the U.N. Human 
Rights Council, because since the United States has ceased to 
be active in that council China has gained more influence on 
the council. And it has now served three terms on the Human 
Rights Council, and it recently secured an appointment to a 
very influential panel, plays a role in nominating independent 
U.N. human rights experts.
    So, the United States needs to become active again in the 
U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.N. Human Rights Council has 
been asked by a group of independent human rights experts to 
establish a special rapporteur on human rights in China. And it 
would be nice if the United States would play a more active 
role in that campaign.
    The United States could also, of course, ratify more human 
rights treaties because that would mean that we would be able 
to elect members, independent experts to sit on those 
monitoring committees.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. And also I have a concern in regards 
to Hong Kong's status as a financial hub. And I am concerned 
with the lack of strategic thinking by the Administration that 
could limit Hong Kong's access to American dollars and markets.
    I am wondering, Mr. Leung, do you anticipate any slippage 
in Hong Kong's financing system and trade standing? And what 
might that effect of that slippage be on the One Country, Two 
Systems doctrine?
    Mr. Leung. Thank you, Congressman.
    China has always taken advantage of Hong Kong's special 
economic status. That is globally recognized. That is treated 
separately from China. But that recognition is conditional upon 
the fact that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous.
    So, I think in future the discussion around sanctions is 
actually not so much about sanctions, it is about withdrawing 
the privilege that the international community conferred on 
China if it has honored its side of promises. Now it has 
completely ruined its side of promises and do not want to allow 
Hong Kong to enjoy high autonomy nor civic freedom.
    So, I think withdrawing the privileges and negotiating 
until China is willing to honor its promises, I think we have 
to think about, you know, that economic privileges, does that 
warrant international recognition that China enjoys now and 
keeps everything from actual economic status.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Yoho.
    Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping have blatantly 
disregarded the agreement between Great Britain and China. The 
international agreement to allow for the self-rule and 
independent governance of Hong Kong has been washed away. The 
rioting going on today in Hong Kong is a direct result of 
Communist Beijing's lack of respect for rule of law and 
international agreements.
    It also shows the Communist Party is intimidated by people 
with free thought. Chinese communism cannot survive in a free 
society. Unfortunately, Xi's communists have brought shame to 
the Chinese people once more as he leads them into their second 
century of shame.
    It is agreed that Hong Kong is a province of China. The 
United Kingdom agreed in 1997 to cede its claim of the 
territory and return full control to China 50 years into the 
future, 2047. The Chinese leaders of the time accepted these 
terms in good faith. The rioting in Hong Kong, approaching a 
year now, is solely the results of Xi and the Communist Party 
breaking those agreements, and is driven by the lust for 
authoritarian power and fear, the fear of, again, free-thinking 
people.
    In modern civil societies there must be a mechanism or 
forum for people to address grievances to their government 
peacefully, without fear of reprisal from the government. This 
is exactly what the people of Hong Kong attempted to do when 
Carrie Lam, Hong Kong's Chief Executive Officer, introduced the 
now ill-fated Extradition Bill last year at the direction of 
China's Communist Party.
    The people of Hong Kong attempted to peacefully address 
their concerns, but their concerns fell on deaf ears. We now 
know why: Chinese communism cannot survive where people have 
free thought. Their goal, that is, of the CCP, is to remove any 
form of democratic existence near its borders. In essence, 
Beijing has broadcast to the world China and the communists are 
not to be trusted.
    The question is: what are international businesses 
operating in Hong Kong going to do? Will they put profit above 
international agreements? Will they place the concerns of their 
board members over human rights? Will year-end dividends and 
stock reports justify their operations' investments in 
manufacturing to overlook actions approaching the atrocities of 
Nazi--of the Nazi regime inflicted upon millions of Jews, 
Czechs, Poles, and others? Let's hope not.
    Is China's assault on its province of Hong Kong a prelude 
to misguided actions against the sovereign nation of Taiwan?
    This fight in Hong Kong is not between China and the United 
States, it is a continual sad loop of human endeavors, the 
fight of right versus wrong, good versus evil, freedom against 
suppression. In the end, freedom will prevail.
    My questions to the panel: have any of you seen or heard 
personal, personally any actions of the protesters to secede 
from China? Or is their concern only to have, of the 
protesters, to have rule of law with an independent judiciary 
system restored?
    Mr. Leung, we will start with you.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    I think in the eyes of the Communist Party everything could 
be, like, could be falling under the concept of national 
security and secession. Once you go against the State, whether 
you speak it publicly, whether you demonstrated, it can be 
construed in some way as subversion to a State power.
    When you look into the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill Movement, 
the majority, the consensus is really about implementing the 
much needed institutional reform and much delayed reform in 
Hong Kong.
    I grew up in Hong Kong, and have witnessed 23 years where 
we have not made substantive democratization progress in our 
Legislative Council in which half of the seats are actually not 
democratically elected. Not to mention our chief executive, who 
is the one to blame for the crisis since 2019, and still 
remains in power.
    It is staggering to think about a quarter of the population 
go against a government and that leader can still remain in 
power for many years. It shows that Chief Executive Carrie Lam 
now is a total pawn for the CCP to execute agenda rather than 
reflecting Hong Kong people's will and interest.
    So, again, I think the whole movement until now, the core 
consensus is really about initiating the much-needed and much-
belated institutional reform.
    Mr. Yoho. Thank you for your answer. I am out of time. And 
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sires.
    Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, let me compliment my colleague from New Jersey for 
fighting always for human rights all these years and working 
with the Speaker on some of these issues for many, many years.
    You know, I worry very much about this whole situation for 
the people of Hong Kong and for the people of the rest of the 
world. I worry that if we do not send a strong response to Hong 
Kong there are many people, many leaders in the Western 
Hemisphere that is looking at this and saying, well, if the 
Chinese did it in Hong Kong I can do it here in Venezuela, I 
can do it here in Nicaragua, I can do it here in Cuba. So, a 
strong response is very, very important, especially from this 
country.
    Going through the United Nations is also very important. 
But the response to China has to be strong because we cannot 
let China set the example that they can do anything and they 
are going to get away with it.
    So, I worry very much that they play the long game. I worry 
that they will say, well, there will be an upheaval in the 
world now, but we will get away with this, just like we have 
gotten away with this in the past.
    I worry about the Administration's approach and the 
President's approach through transitional kind of politics that 
we are practicing now in this country. And there are many 
things that can be said but I think that haven't been said.
    So, with that, I ask the panel--does this country now have 
the credibility to make strong statements on what is going on 
in Hong Kong? Anyone in the panel.
    Mr. Lee. Thank you for the question.
    I think, I think, of course--Nathan, you want to go?
    Mr. Law. You go. Your turn.
    Mr. Lee. Yes. You know, on the question about, you know, 
credibility, I think it is very important that, you know, 
actions always speak more than words. And we want to see the 
support, as mentioned, in the United Nations and a lot of the 
international community implement and introducing to support 
Hong Kong.
    And I want in Hong Kong, the other question that has 
already been asked is what are we looking for? We are looking 
for democracy only. And we have been promised democracy. And 
for 23 years we have been disappointed after the handover. And 
the disappointment is now, you know, really stifling the 
opportunity for Hong Kongers. And we feel very much very 
disappointed that over many years the world has pushed against 
the power of China.
    Mr. Leung. And I would just add--thank you for the 
question, first--I would just add Hong Kong people are actually 
watching very keenly about what U.S. is doing and has started. 
So, I think action and words of U.S. Government from now on 
will be closely watched and will be in the deep interests of 
Hong Kong people.
    I think the first step to using credibility is, as Mr. Lee 
has said, is to build action, is to speak up for Hong Kong 
whenever there is a critical crisis and implement concrete 
policy from now on.
    So, I think that credibility will be built.
    Mr. Law. Yes, I think the support from the U.S. to Hong 
Kong, in particular with our pursuit of freedom, has always 
been very strong bipartisan and, well, very vocally since last 
year. And for me myself, I studied at Yale University last year 
and I felt very encouraged that a lot of my, well, fellow 
students they came to me and vocally support for my pursuit and 
a lot of actions in Hong Kong.
    But it is not only about the government and not only about 
the bipartisan support in Congress. But for ordinary Americans 
we have felt that they really are giving us enormous support, 
no matter on Twitter or some other platforms.
    So, I think that kind of noise and vocal support is much 
needed. And I think it will encourage a lot of Hong Kong people 
when they feel alone and feel helpless when they face this 
giant authoritarian regime.
    Chairman Engel. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Curtis.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yesterday I introduced the bipartisan Hong Kong Safe Harbor 
Act, along with my partner Representative Castro, and other 
members of this committee, including Representatives Sherman, 
Yoho, Kinzinger, Malinowski, and others, and Smith.
    I want to pause and take note of the bipartisan nature of 
this bill and the strong bipartisan support. And I hope by 
doing so, those who are watching this hearing will take notice 
that we are committed as a, as a Congress, regardless of party, 
to act on this.
    This bill would designate Hong Kongers as Priority 2 
refugees, streamlining the refugee admission process.
    This bill also sets up asylum, an asylum path for those in 
Hong Kong who are in immediate danger from the CCP. Front line 
activists, journalists harmed while covering the protests, 
first-aid responders at the protests, anyone who provided legal 
service to those arrested for the protests, and anyone arrested 
during the protests since June 9th, 2019.
    The legislation also instructs the Secretary of State to 
work with like-minded ally countries to accept refugees from 
Hong Kong. This bill addressed the immediate humanitarian 
crisis. The U.S. must act fast.
    This legislation is needed and it is needed immediately.
    I would also like to note that more legislation is in 
process. And I would like to point out the good work of others 
on this committee, Representative Malinowski and others, and 
note that we have a lot of work to do. I hope the House will 
act quickly on this legislation.
    My question to the witnesses is that as I have listened to 
the propaganda regarding this bill, I frequently hear that it 
is a passive bill, that it will only be used in extreme 
circumstances, that it won't be exercised as feared. I would 
like your comments on that.
    And specifically, since the law went into effect I 
understand there have been arrests since then, and are you 
seeing any impact already of the bill? And is this passiveness 
that was promised simply propaganda?
    Mr. Lee. Yes. I, personally, I think it is not at all a 
passive bill. When you look at the way they, you know, framed 
all the charges and about the issues that they are going to 
enforce, the bill is really very scary.
    First, they have a National Security body headed by the 
Communist Party in China. And then they have a National 
Security Agency stationed in Hong Kong in cooperation with the 
police, of course, you know, and with police personnel in this 
whole mechanism continue to set up.
    And then the police will have the power to confiscate your 
computer, seize your accounts, confiscate your passport. So, 
all these are put into the law. So it is not at all passive. 
And they have the whole instance now to create a whole National 
Security Agency institution in Hong Kong to enforce the law. 
So, it is not at all passive.
    And now today, just today, ten people have been arrested--
or 300 people have been arrested. And out of the 300 arrested, 
10 of them were arrested for breaking the National Security 
Law. And so it is today already they acted in arresting people 
in the demonstrations that we have just today.
    And to add one more point, when you look at how the police 
enforce the law, they have already, as I mentioned in my 
written statement, banned already, you know, one of the people 
that you mentioned was National Security Law secession and 
subversion. So, it is not at all passive. And, sadly, they are 
now already starting to take a very active role and will in the 
future so that people of Hong Kong will be fearful of standing 
up for their rights and will be fearful for fighting for our 
freedom.
    Mr. Law. Yes. I think the comments of Mr. Lee are not only 
about its execution but its cultural impact toward us, that 
Hong Kong as a society is immense. The spokesperson of the 
Communist Party, as Mr. Lee said that, there are a lot of 
incidents with really low threshold that people could be 
violating the National Security Law.
    Like, you are saying certain slogans, or you are starting, 
I think, certain rumors that could kind of, like, create hatred 
toward the government in which it is really a fixed term.
    And also, in today's record there are cases that 
individuals carrying banners or stickers without even 
displaying it when the police conduct a stop and search, they 
were actually arrested by them in the names of National 
Security Law.
    So, you could see how poor and how shallow the whole 
execution is. And I think it is not only about really getting 
you go in jail, but also creating a white terror among the 
crowd to remind us that our rights are all being deprived, and 
we can only listen to whatever Communist Party says.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I am out of time. And I appreciate 
the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 
panel for being here. And thank you for your bravery to our 
Hong Kong friends who are with us today.
    I want to talk about two things: leverage and impunity. And 
I think, I think the elephant in this room is the fact that the 
Trump Administration has unilaterally given up leverage that 
would be profoundly helpful in the situation in Hong Kong.
    On human rights, the President is almost silent. He misses 
every opportunity to talk to foreign leaders about it. And, in 
fact, is an enabler. Look at Saudi Arabia, look at Russia.
    When it comes to international treaties, our moral high 
ground is compromised by our retreat, whether it be the Paris 
Climate Accord, whether it be the Iran Nuclear Agreement, 
whether it be the INF, or the fact that we still haven't signed 
the Law of the Seas, meaning we do not have much leverage in 
that body either, which really matters with this country China.
    We talk about Mr. Castro's bill, a good bill to try to 
provide a relief valve for Hong Kong refugees, but this 
Administration has limited the number of refugees. It cut the 
number from 110,000 to 20,000. And we are not even going to 
come close to that this year. It has made--it is about to lay 
off 13,500 people who work for immigration and citizenship 
services, making it impossible to naturalize or process asylum 
claims.
    And then with respect to China, we know from John Bolton 
this president pled with President Xi, the man we are trying to 
influence to do the right thing, to help him with his 
reelection by buying U.S. goods, and agriculture goods 
especially.
    Mr. Bolton says in the mass protests a year ago in Hong 
Kong President Trump's reaction was, I do not want to get 
involved. And at one point he even praised President Xi's 
handling of it.
    Where is our leverage? Where is our moral high ground? We 
can say whatever we want here, but actions of this 
Administration speak a lot louder than rhetoric.
    And then there is impunity, Chinese impunity. Professor 
Petersen, you talk a lot about international forums, and human 
rights resolutions, and using our influence to try to pressure 
the Chinese, but it seems to me the Chinese have decided it 
does not matter. They are acting with impunity against the 
agreement with the handover of Hong Kong, against international 
law, against the international press for human rights.
    What is the leverage we have, I ask you, Professor 
Petersen? And why do the Chinese operate with such clear 
impunity? And, Mr. Law, you may want to comment on that as 
well.
    Ms. Petersen. Yes. Thank you for that question.
    International law is inherently difficult to enforce. That 
is right. But I do not agree with you, sir, that China does not 
care at all about the human rights laws.
    And the reason I disagree is that I see the Chinese 
Government investing a great deal of time and resources to 
become a more active participant in the U.N. human rights 
monitoring bodies and to try to shape the norms into a form 
that suits them. So, we do see the Chinese Government trying 
to, for example, intimidate treaty monitoring bodies so that 
they do not post shadow reports that are critical of the 
Chinese Government.
    We see the Chinese Government trying to----
    Mr. Connolly. Professor, if I could just interrupt you 
because I do not have a lot of time.
    Ms. Petersen. Sure.
    Mr. Connolly. I am not sure that proves your point. I think 
all that does is prove that China is using its leverage to 
completely dilute the effect of international law.
    Look at how it ignored the ruling, which was decisive, on 
the Philippines' rights before UNCLOS and the Law of the Seas 
and the arbitration panel. They have ignored it. They do not 
care. They have shown no interest in caring about that at all 
other than to continue to try to dilute rulings of the body and 
to isolate those rulings when they do not come in their favor.
    Ms. Petersen. I, I accept your point on the case with the 
Philippines. But I still do not agree that it is worthless to 
invest time in the U.N. The reason they have more leverage in 
the U.N. human rights monitoring system is that the United 
States has become inactive.
    And that is where I do agree with you, we have lost our 
leverage because we are not on that stage as much as we should 
be. And the truth is the United States has sometimes ignored 
rulings as well. I mean, we have not always accepted rulings of 
the International Court of Justice, even when they had 
jurisdiction in contentious cases.
    So, I think no action on the international stage is 
perfect, but if we want to help the people of Hong Kong, one 
way that we could help, in my opinion, is to be more active in 
the U.N. human rights monitoring system.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Law just respond to 
the impunity question? I, of course, yield back my time.
    Chairman Engel. Certainly.
    Mr. Law. Yes, I think, well, for decades the world has been 
tuning in for China's violations in terms of trade agreement or 
any kinds of international treaty. And so now it is very 
difficult to find an international mechanism that could really 
hold them accountable from what we have now.
    So, I think it is important that we recognize how China has 
been manipulating the leeway and treating, like, issues on 
China, on Taiwan or Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China Sea, and 
also in India even, with huge disrespect for international 
norms.
    So, I think this is not only about the current mechanism 
that we could use, but also the attitude of the countries 
around the world, especially those more liberal ones, how they 
could join hands to apply pressure on the ground in these 
places in regards to China's expansionist, expansionist nature.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wright.
    OK. Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will say for 
the record I am going to miss you and your leadership. You have 
been a, you have been a great leader of this committee in the 
short time I have been here. And I have thoroughly enjoyed it. 
And I hope you consider me a friend because I sure consider you 
one, brother. And you will be missed.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
    Chairman Engel. Much appreciated.
    Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
    Chinese officials in Beijing and Hong Kong have said this 
new security law will target an extremely small number of 
people. I do not believe anybody believes these officials. We 
cannot assume that the Chinese Communist Party will stay true 
to their word. The CCP has shown time and time again they are 
not to be trusted and they play by their own set of rules.
    A few examples of that,--I am going to take my mask off a 
second--attempting to cover up the origins of the COVID-19 by 
destroying forensic evidence, silencing doctors that dared to 
speak out, and failing to notify the international community 
over COVID as a whole. And they continue to bully their 
neighbors in the South China Sea with absurd claims of 
territorial rights over the Spratly Islands, bloodshed along 
the line of the actual control with India. I think based on 
recent events we can probably say that China is to blame 
completely. They have forced over one million Uyghurs into 
prison camps. I have heard the reports go on--they are 
shocking--forced abortions, beatings, torture, solitary 
confinement and more. It honestly leaves you speechless, Mr. 
Chairman.
    But I do not know why we should expect any better of a 
group of people that are oppressing. They have a history of 
doing this to their own people. We need to call them out for 
these acts whenever, and whenever and wherever they do it.
    Yesterday pro-democracy political group Demo--I am not sure 
if I am pronouncing this right--Demosisto and two other 
independence groups dissolved with Hong Kong. Is this the point 
of no return for Hong Kong's democratic movement?
    And I will ask our distinguished group that has gathered.
    Mr. Law. Yes, thank you for your question.
    I think it is important for us to recognize that any forms 
of disagreement with Beijing, or even in their own term, 
increase hatred toward them so we can see the violation of the 
National Security Law. Basically, none of us could speak freely 
because we can never get when they will feel, well, hated.
    So, I think this is exactly this case in Hong Kong for all 
the local political activists. We are basically chained for 
most of the occasion if we do not want to face lifelong 
imprisonment.
    I think sometimes this is white terror that they created. 
And for us, we really have to test how, how that execution will 
be, how they will implement that law, and to adjust our way to 
continue our activism.
    But I do not think this is the end of our movement because, 
as you could see, there are three Hong Kong activists sitting 
in this panel giving our testimony, and also there were more 
than about 100,000 people marching down the street.
    There are a lot of brave Hong Kong people who do not afraid 
the tyranny, and they feel, well, much better regardless of the 
intimidation from them.
    So, I think Hong Kong movement is pretty much still alive 
and with its tenacity. And I think the international community 
should really pressure and admire this group of brave people 
that give our fight in these dark times.
    Mr. Burchett. Any others?
    Mr. Lee. Actually, I am the Chair of the Hong Kong Alliance 
in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China that is 
founded in 1989. And we have been, you know, fighting for 
democracy for China, and of course Hong Kong, over the past 31 
years. And every day I was asked by the journalists whether we 
will dissolve our organization because of the National Security 
Law.
    Why they are asking that? Because we have, of course, we 
have the platform of, you know, bringing justice to those who 
ordered the massacre in Tiananmen Square. We have the platform 
of end of one-party rule, and also building a democratic China. 
So, people are only asking us whether the end of one-party rule 
will be something that will be caught by the National Security 
Law as undermining the system of China.
    We do not know, to be honest. But we have told all the 
journalists, the media, that we will hold on to our principles 
and we will not retreat. Though we do not know what lies ahead 
of us, but I think it is very important that we believe in 
democracy and we practice our beliefs.
    And so, we do not know what lies ahead. And we will--and 
people also ask me because we have the June 4th Museum where 
there are a lot of artifacts inside, whether we will, you know, 
sort of, send it out of Hong Kong to somewhere safe. No, we are 
not going to do that. We will still stay on and practice what 
we have--the only activity we have continued from that in the 
past.
    But, as you said, you know, we do not know when we can 
return victorious to democracy.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you,. I have run over time, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you.
    I hope we continue to support free people everywhere. And I 
think if we are finally going to take care of this problem we 
have just got to stop buying Chinese junk, and we have got to 
stop putting up with their garbage and we have to--and talk is 
cheap, and we need to put something behind all this talk.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate your 
friendship, brother.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I would like to thank each of the witnesses for 
their testimony as well as their continued bravery, and 
advocacy, and support for the people of Hong Kong. We are 
grateful to those of you especially who took risks by appearing 
here today.
    This national security legislation is just one more example 
of the political persecution, suppression of human rights, and 
pro-democracy groups and civil rights lawyers and religious 
groups conducted by the Government of China.
    In Tibet we have seen cultural genocide to control the 
desire for Tibetan self-determination. We have seen the cruelty 
in Xinjiang where Uyghur Muslims are surveilled, their phones 
tapped to trace their movements, conversations, and networks 
both in and out of the country. They are forced to provide 
blood samples, voice prints, facial scans, and other personal 
data, all before being thrown into mandatory reeducation camps 
designed to suppress the Uyghur language and culture, 
transforming Xinjiang into a virtual police State.
    Just today, Hong Kong police arrested protesters under the 
new law for crimes yet to be divulged.
    And we must ask ourselves what is next? Who is next?
    The Communist Party in China has grown more ambitious in 
ways that are anathema to democratic values and the rule of 
law, normalizing and enabling environments for the breakdown of 
civil rights and liberties. And in spite of Beijing's 
increasing encroachment on freedoms, I stand, we stand with the 
people of Hong Kong for their bravery and their courage to 
advocate for their freedoms.
    When the freedom and democracy of future generations are at 
stake, we have no choice but to speak up and to act. But it 
cannot come simply from this Congress. There is no doubt that 
the Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, who chose to spend 
time with us today, is committed to fighting for human rights. 
She has been doing it for 30 years. And there is no doubt that 
my friend Mr. Smith has likewise been standing up for human 
rights everywhere on the globe. And he has been doing it for 30 
years.
    But the leadership also needs to come at the top. And we 
are having this hearing today even as we are struggling to 
understand how the President's former National Security Advisor 
wrote of the President stressing the importance of farmers in 
increased Chinese purchases of soy beans and wheat in the 
electoral outcome and ``pleading with Xi to ensure he would 
win.''
    And then also the former National Security Advisor said 
that, at a G-20 meeting in June 2019, Xi had explained to Trump 
why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang, 
and according to our interpreter, Mr. Bolton said, ``Trump said 
that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump 
thought was exactly the right thing to do.''
    The National Security Council's top Asia staffer, Matthew 
Pottinger, told me that Trump said something very similar 
during his November 2017 trip to China. That, also, from the 
former National Security Advisor.
    And even on Hong Kong the President said, after a quarter 
of the population of Hong Kong turned out for weeks of 
protests, the President said, ``I think President Xi of China 
has acted responsibly, very responsibly. They have been out 
there protesting for a long time.''
    I hope that President Xi will do the right thing,'' he 
said, adding China ``could stop the protests if they wanted.''
    I want to commend the State Department for its May 28th 
Joint statement with the Governments of Australia, Canada, and 
the U.K. loudly opposing Beijing's imposition of the National 
Security Law on Hong Kong.
    But I am so troubled at the way the President has conducted 
the relationship, his relationship with President Xi, and all 
of the ways that I just laid out that so clearly contradict the 
great bipartisan commitment to standing up for human rights of 
the people of China and, today especially, the people of Hong 
Kong that we have seen exhibited here in this committee.
    Mr. Law, if I can just ask, the United States clearly has 
to work with like-minded countries. What more can be done, 
should be done with the United States leading the way in a 
multilateral effort to respond to this new law, the imposition 
of this new law? What can be done?
    Mr. Law. Thank you very much, Congressman, for your 
question.
    I think for now, when a push for multiple bills comes in a 
Hong Kong situation, that we indeed need a strong action to 
implement them and to see what we can do to hold China 
accountable. Because for the past few years we have been 
pushing for Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. And I am 
glad that it was passed last year, end of last year. And we 
have seen a lot of upcoming bills that are going to be passed 
and will be pending have effect on them.
    And I think this is an important process to show the world 
that even the U.S. or the western world when they are dealing 
with China they no longer see trade or business interests as 
their priority, but for human rights and for the pursuit of 
freedom. So, these like-minded countries, I think, were 
accessing their policy, and getting an agenda right is the most 
important thing that we could expect. And we would definitely 
feel encouraged if these countries are doing it with a very 
obvious action.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Law.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
    Mrs. Wagner.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank the Chairman and, certainly, our 
witnesses for bringing attention to China's attempt to bully 
and intimidate Hong Kong into abandoning its rights and 
freedoms.
    Hong Kong's success as a free and open city exposes the 
injustices and hypocrisy of the communist system in China. 
Congress stands in unity, in bipartisan unity with Hong Kong 
residents as they fight to protect rule of law and respect for 
human rights in their city.
    Yesterday, the Standing Committee of China's National 
People's Congress formally approved the National Security Law 
in time for it to go into effect today, on July 1st, the 
anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China. This is a date of 
great significance for pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong.
    Ms. Petersen, I think we know how this new law has affected 
the annual July 1st protest, sadly, but how should the United 
States respond to these violent crackdowns on protesters?
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you for that question.
    Well, I think, obviously, we should be condemning it. We 
should join multilateral groups at the United Nations to 
condemn it. We should become more active in the U.N. Human 
Rights Council which is being asked to set up an independent 
monitoring mechanism.
    And I fully agree with everyone who has suggested the Safe 
Harbor Act because I think it is very, a very strong and 
significant show of support, more than just talk, to tell 
people that you will provide safe harbor if they have to flee 
an authoritarian machine.
    I want to say one brief thing about this, the statements 
that this law will only be enforced against a small number 
people. I think that was Carrie Lam's hope because she really 
hoped that everyone would be so frightened by this law that 
everyone would stay at home. And that is one of the reasons the 
law was brought into force during the COVID restrictions, 
because it makes it easier for the Hong Kong Government to try 
to persuade everyone to stay home.
    But, clearly, that hasn't been the case. I think that there 
will be far more arrests than perhaps Carrie Lam had predicted. 
And the big question will be whether the people are tried in 
Hong Kong, where I do think the judiciary is still independent, 
or whether the mainland will use Article 55 to bring them to 
the mainland for trial, which would really be a terrible 
violation of----
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
    Ms. Petersen [continuing]. The Sino-British Joint 
Declaration.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Ms. Petersen.
    ``More than just talk'' I think is the operative word 
there.
    The Communist Party's move to impose this National Security 
Law on Hong Kong seems to be inspired in part by domestic 
instability stemming from the party's catastrophic handling, as 
you just mentioned, Ms. Petersen, of the coronavirus pandemic. 
And I just came from the China Task Force where I presented a 
Compensation for Americans Act piece of legislation that I hope 
we can move forward.
    Mr. Lee, do you expect discontent at home could push an 
unstable Beijing to take even more shocking actions against the 
people of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Lee. Thank you for the question.
    We expect the Communist Party of China will, you know, be 
high-handed in the way they try to, you know, in the way to 
upset the protests. But we are seeing the people come out. I 
think you really have, all have to appreciate the courage of 
people all marching out, today being July 1st. And they have 
actually key, you know, instruments of protection.
    One is the National Security Law. Actually they have used 
another law that is a draconian law in the British colonial 
times, and then they changed it during 1997 to make it more 
applicable. It is a public security ordinance. And I personally 
was charged for seven charges for four incidents or marches 
under the public security ordinance because now they are using 
the excuse of organizing and saying that they would ban all 
gatherings. And so, when we want to organize, you know, you 
witnessed the one million and two million marches in June last 
year----
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
    Mr. Lee [continuing]. Now it is totally impossible to do 
that now.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lee.
    Real quickly, China seems to have accelerated the time 
lines for passing and implementing the National Security Law in 
order to turn the tide against pro-democracy candidates at 
September's Hong Kong Legislative Council elections.
    I do not know if you have time to answer because my time is 
about out, Ms. Petersen, but how do you anticipate the National 
Security Law will impact the makeup of Hong Kong's Legislative 
Council?
    What actions can the international community take to 
protect the pro-democracy movement this September?
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you for that question.
    Well, very briefly, I do anticipate that the Beijing and 
appointed Hong Kong Government will try to use this law to 
disqualify pro-democracy candidates running for office. I think 
the democracy movement is being very careful to try not to 
violate the law, or at least to make sure that there are 
candidates who can still stand. But it is going to be very 
difficult. I think they will try to use it as a pretense for 
disqualifying them.
    Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Petersen. My time has expired. 
I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair, indulgence of the 
Chair.
    And I want to thank Chairman Eliot for his leadership on 
this committee and here in Congress. It is an honor to serve 
with you, sir.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wagner. Very much 
appreciate those very kind words. Thank you.
    Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 
our extraordinarily courageous witnesses for being here today 
for this really important hearing.
    And while it is comforting to know that there is strong 
bipartisan support for human rights on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee of the Congress of the United States, I think we have 
to recognize that the President's policy toward China has 
undermined American leadership and called into question, 
frankly, decades of strong bipartisan support for Hong Kong. 
And the American policy toward Hong Kong should, of course, be 
based on advancing the interests of our own country in 
supporting autonomy and democratic freedoms for Hong Kong.
    But we know, of course, that just a few months ago the 
President wanted a trade deal and couldn't offer President Xi 
enough praise or deference during those negotiations and 
subsequent to them.
    We also know now there is new reporting that the President 
also sought assistance in his reelection campaign from the 
Chinese, and supported the Chinese Government's efforts to 
continue to put the Uyghurs in concentration camps, and 
actually praised President Xi's handling of earlier protests in 
Hong Kong.
    So, my first question is, despite strong, clear bipartisan 
support for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong, how does the 
President's conduct and his failure to speak out in support of 
human rights broadly, and then the specific efforts to coddle 
the Chinese president and advance his own political interests, 
how does that impact what is happening in Hong Kong, how the 
Chinese Government responds to protests in Hong Kong?
    And any of the witnesses who can provide an answer to that 
would be helpful. Mr. Law, maybe you can start.
    Mr. Law. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    I think it is important that we have a stable and strong 
alliance, including the cooperation from the Congress and the 
White House, that when there are resolutions passed in the 
Congress then we could swiftly implement it.
    Second, I think it is important that we need a more--or 
less volatile government to really handle these cases. But I 
think sometimes it is strategic. And I think most importantly, 
the structural direction toward China are more assertive and 
more an attitude that holds China accountable has already 
established. So, I think for long-term I am not worried that 
this kind of consensus between aisles will fade.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Kai-ping, could you speak to how you think the Chinese 
Government will use this new law? Again, it is not a security 
law, it is a law of repression of dissent, it is a law to 
destroy democracy in Hong Kong.
    There was, it has already been reported, the first arrest 
this morning under this new law for a gentleman holding a Hong 
Kong independence flag. And so, what should we expect to see in 
terms of the imposition or the use of this new law?
    Mr. Leung. I think on two levels you can see the impact 
that is immediate on Hong Kong first. I think there is a 
pervasive sense of self-censorship, a political party had to in 
the past suspend themselves. Magazines online have to self-
censor their content. And protesters no longer will be able to 
enjoy specifically freedom to express political beliefs and 
hanging up a political flag or slogans.
    I think those very pervasive intrusions to civil liberties 
that we have enjoyed over many decades is now under great 
threat.
    And I think the second level is really about the 
institutional presence of the CCP in Hong Kong that their 
office could now--basically is about the law. The operation is 
not bound by Basic Law, nor bound by Hong Kong Government. 
There is no way to hold them accountable. They could do 
surveillance, they could intercept information, they could do 
secretive arrests of protesters and then extradite them to 
China.
    So, the law is really comprehensive in this sense, and its 
presence is pervasive in every corner----
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Leung [continuing]. Of civil society.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much.
    My final question is, you know, I know that speaking out 
and condemning the conduct of the Chinese Government is we all 
will do. And the purpose of this hearing is to shine a light on 
it. I know many have suggested a moving forward with sanctions 
which, of course, is appropriate.
    But my final question is are there other things, other 
actions we should be taking, both as the United States and 
along with partners around the world, our allies, that will 
have a meaningful impact on the Chinese Government in terms of 
their efforts to destroy the democracy of Hong Kong? And if so, 
what are they?
    Mr. Law. Well, I think at least for now it, well, the 
problems in Hong Kong is not only about Hong Kong, it is about 
how China will continue its authoritarian and expansionist 
nature. So, I think we could think of something like targeting 
its Winter Olympics, upcoming Winter Olympics and also issues 
not only happening in Hong Kong but happening elsewhere like 
Xinjiang and Taiwan in order to pile up the pressure and to 
coordinate the applied pressure and get them to be aligned with 
international norms and international ruling.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Leung. And if I may add to that. I think--Do we have 
time? Sorry.
    Mr. Cicilline. Sure. As long as the chairman will let you 
answer?
    Chairman Engel. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Leung. If I may add, I think the world now has to 
reckon with a risen China that is economically very powerful. 
And I think the world has to formulate a very stable, cohesive, 
and multilateral policy toward China, especially on terms of 
trade and business conducting.
    There are still U.S. companies who operate in Xinjiang, the 
Uyghur region. And we have to take into account human rights 
issues when dealing with China in economic runs. This actually 
is the issue of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back I, too, 
want to thank you for your extraordinary leadership of this 
committee. You have been a mentor from the day that I arrived 
in Congress and I had the privilege of serving on the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. I will be forever in your debt. And thank 
you for your great friendship and your service to our country.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Engel. Thank you so much, Mr. Cicilline. Very much 
appreciated. Thank you.
    Mr. Watkins.
    Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 
panelists for your bravery.
    The Chinese Communist Party poses a serious threat not just 
to the United States but international interests. This is 
Chinese Government, clearly not the Chinese people. The CCP is 
problematic. And many Chinese people have immigrated to the 
United States. They are welcome, obviously. I am biased because 
I married one.
    But the CCP for decades has been using meticulous and 
multidimensional strategies to degrade and undermine American 
hegemony and democracies around the world. Chairman Xi has 
accelerated these efforts, most recently and clearly apparent 
in CCP's dealings with Hong Kong.
    Obviously CCP has violated the promise of One Country, Two 
Systems by clamping down on Hong Kong. And they have shown a 
blatant disregard for human rights: mass detention of millions 
of Uyghurs, forced sterilization presumably of tens of millions 
of women over the past 30 years, and not allowing the freedom 
of speech.
    Chinese citizens who criticize the government are 
disappeared. Most recently we have seen that play out during 
the coronavirus where now the world has over 10 million cases 
and half a million deaths. They didn't share lifesaving 
information. They covered up how infectious and dangerous the 
disease was. They didn't report human-to-human transmission for 
a month. And they censored anyone trying to warn the world.
    They let some 5 million people leave Wuhan without 
screening. They destroyed samples. They hoarded PPE. And they 
blamed the United States' soldiers. So, they have not been a 
good actor with regards to coronavirus.
    And with regard to national and regional disruption 
economically, they have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars 
of intellectual property from the United States. They have 
forced technology transfer and they interfere with global 
supply chains, economics, and international business.
    So, countering the CCP's aggression, thankfully we have a 
president who will hold the CCP to account. An American 
president who, unlike any other in history, will be tough on 
China.
    Republican leader Kevin McCarthy has established the China 
Task Force, spearheaded by this committee's own Ranking Member 
Mike McCaul.
    It is clear that we must steer the U.S. in a direction that 
is less dependent on China economically and in terms of 
manufacturing.
    And so my question to Mr. Law, who, sir, you understand the 
United States very well. You went to Yale University. I 
represent Eastern Kansas. What do Kansans need to know about 
the situation? What can I take home to tell my constituents?
    Mr. Law. Well, I think when we talk about human rights and 
also the human rights violations in Hong Kong we have to 
understand that we are actually facing a global fight. We have 
seen also where, for example, in the general election in the 
U.S. a lot of, well, foreign forces getting infiltration and 
also manipulating a lot of misinformation campaign. And the 
same happens in Hong Kong.
    So, actually I think in the U.S. and in Hong Kong we both 
share a lot of things that originated from authoritarian powers 
like Russia and, like, China. So, I think for me my greatest 
hope is to educate more U.S. citizens to understand that we are 
actually in a global fight. We should hold hands together and 
to suppress these authoritarian expansionists, and to let us 
know that fighting for democracy, especially in Hong Kong, in 
this foreground, is indeed helping the world to preserve its 
democracy and its values.
    Mr. Watkins. Thank you.
    To either, any of the other panelists, I have been to Hong 
Kong. I love Hong Kong. How will the future be different in the 
next 5 or 10 years because of the CCP?
    Mr. Lee. I do not think anyone can, you know, tell the 
future. You know, of course we hope that freedom and democracy 
will return to Hong Kong, but I think we are into very 
difficult times. And not just us but I think the whole China, 
everything will be under CCP who only preaches about 
nationalism without really caring about our people. I think we 
are into hard times.
    But I want to also mention one thing about, you know, 
people-to-people exchanges that Nathan had just mentioned, 
educating the American public about the situation in Hong Kong. 
And one thing that I think the Communist Party also in the 
National Security Law also mentioned about foreign NGO's. And I 
think they also want to intervene into how these exchanges go 
on.
    And, but I think we should be very--it is very important 
and very encouraging to the people of Hong Kong that these 
exchanges continue.
    Mr. Leung. If I may just add a last word about how do we 
want to speak to American audience. I think we have to 
recognize Chinese interest is not only about Hong Kong, it is 
also about people around the world. We think let's talk about 
Zoom. That has been used in American campus. That explicitly 
censors Chinese activists.
    We can talk about this information campaign of China on 
Twitter, on Facebook, social media platforms that are owned by 
China and censor sensitive information such as TikTok which is 
widely used by American teenagers.
    So, I think we have to recognize the global imprint of 
China is actually infiltrating to every corner of the world and 
every citizens, even in America will be affected.
    Mr. Watkins. Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate the 
bravery of the panelists.
    I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Castro [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. And I will 
now recognize myself.
    The Chinese Government is not only violating the rights of 
Hong Kongers but also violating an international treaty, the 
Sino-British Joint Declaration. This again undermines the 
credibility of the Chinese Government when it comes to public 
pledges and international agreements.
    The National Security Law is part of a larger campaign of 
increased aggression from China in recent months, from its 
clashes with India and Vietnam, to its bullying of Taiwan, and 
increased repression of the Uyghurs. I believe China has been 
emboldened by the fact that no one is minding the shop at the 
White House. President Trump has consistently failed to hold 
China accountable on a range of issues and has, in fact, 
demonstrated no interest in doing so, specifically on human 
rights.
    Last summer, President Trump adopted the Chinese 
Government's language by calling Hong Kong's peaceful protests 
riots. He also promised President Xi from the beginning that he 
would not get involved in Hong Kong, in a misguided attempt to 
win concessions on China in trade talks. That strategy, like 
most of President Trump's failed, it failed and is now costing 
the folks in Hong Kong.
    I joined Representative Curtis in introducing a bipartisan, 
bicameral bill, the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act, that would 
expedite the process for Hong Kongers being persecuted to seek 
refugee status in the United States. This is a common sense 
policy that will protect the protesters who inspired so many of 
us for their dogged commitment to upholding universal human 
rights in the face of a very repressive regime.
    We also must work with our allies, such as the United 
Kingdom and Taiwan, in protecting Hong Kongers who now face 
retaliation by mainland Chinese forces.
    With that, I have a few questions. And as I mentioned, Mr. 
Curtis and myself, along with other members of this committee 
introduced a bill yesterday that would give Hong Kongers who 
face persecution an easier path to receive refugee status in 
the United States.
    Can any of the witnesses speak to whom in Hong Kong, or 
whom in Hong Kong is most at risk of being targeted by the 
Chinese and being persecuted because of the National Security 
Law?
    Should the United States pay special attention to student 
leaders and other specific groups?
    And I ask that question of anyone on the panel.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    I think since 2012 I think Hong Kong has seen a wave of 
youth-led movements. We have for 2012 we have a group of 
student leaders coupled with other seniors in civil society who 
led the Umbrella Movement. And now the extradition, Anti-
Extradition Movement in 2019 also substantively involved a lot 
of young protesters.
    So, I think party leaders, for example Nathan and Joshua, 
are under tremendous pressure by the CCP. I think those 
political leaders from our generation do need certain 
protection but also just other activists who are the first-
aiders, who are the legal consultants, who have been, you know, 
just reporting news, they will also be under pressure under the 
National Security Law.
    Mr. Castro. OK. Anyone else on the panel?
    Mr. Lee. And I think about the younger protesters and all 
the older protesters that have been arrested over the past 
year, there are already 9,000 arrests, and 2,000 of them 
prosecuted under the law. And many of them are prosecuted under 
the law of--the crime of social crime of riot. And that may end 
up in 4 years or 6 years or even more years jail term for them.
    Very often what happens is not that they have any action in 
the scene, it is just that they have not left it, and then the 
police will find that as a scene of riot and then they are 
caught by the police. And then they may be sent to jail for 4 
years.
    So, it is not the National Security Law in the future, what 
I wanted to say is also the protest movements in the past, 
there already are lots of prosecution through these draconian 
laws for the publicity or the show. I think in the future and 
the past, you know, these victims of police brutality and 
police harassment and prosecution, unfair political prosecution 
will be the ones that have to be supported and with these new 
bills that are going to be introduced.
    Mr. Castro. All right. Thank you. I am going to keep myself 
on time here and thank you for your answers.
    I am going to go to Ms. Titus of Nevada.
    Ms. Titus. Hear me? Oh, there we go.
    Well, thank you very much. You know, most of the hearing 
has focused on just this particular law and the context of the 
COVID virus. But as you just said in these last few speakers, 
this really isn't new. It goes back to 2014 with the Umbrella 
Movement, with the umbrellas against the tear gas when they 
appointed the first special executive. Then last summer I was 
in Hong Kong, we saw the early protests against the Extradition 
Law. That was withdrawn, but certainly some of the other 
demands weren't.
    But throughout all of that, Carrie Lam said, well, we still 
have the One Country, Two Systems. That seems to now be out the 
window. There does not seem to be much pretense that that still 
exists.
    So, I wish you all would elaborate maybe on how we should 
have maybe seen this coming.
    And then second question because of my own background, I 
wonder what the impact of this is going to be on universities, 
students, academics, professors in Hong Kong. Because the way 
the law is defined where it says subversion of State power, 
terrorist activity, collusion, those are very broad terms that 
can be applied just about any way the regime wants to. And that 
would certainly target, I would think, professors and students 
in the social sciences.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question. If I may just 
address the second part of your question.
    I myself is in academia. And a lot of Hong Kong 
intellectuals, whether they are young or whether they are more 
senior, are extremely worried about the future. They worry 
about whether they could conduct independent research, whether 
their previous work will be scrutinized and used as evidence 
against themselves.
    And also, not only about local academics, even scholars in 
America, because the law is so pervasive that it also covers 
American citizens. Academics who study on China or Hong Kong 
are very worried about the future. Will they be able to enter 
Hong Kong safely for future conferences or research, not to 
mention China. Right?
    So, I think academics are under tremendous pressure under 
this law. And a lot of self-censorship will happen.
    And, last, to go back to the first part of the question, 
you rightly point out that is not a new phenomena. If you look 
at 2014, Xi Jinping actually issued a white paper on the 
formulation of One Country, Two Systems policy. And it is 
explicit that the CCP under Xi Jinping's leadership is about 
total control, it is about party dominance, it is about what 
they call overall jurisdiction.
    So, we should take into account the historical trajectory 
of CCP changing its formulation of One Country, Two Systems 
completely different from the era in Deng Xiaoping, for 
example, about Hong Kong people will remain Hong Kong. No. Deng 
Xiaoping said it is about the polity ruling Hong Kong. It is 
about polity who control every sector of Hong Kong.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Mr. Law. Well, If I might jump into the second part of the 
question. Because I think we have witnessed a lot of 
suppression and worries from the local community. And a lot of 
scholars or students they are really worried whether they have 
academic freedom in Hong Kong.
    So, actually, a lot of them are seeking opportunities to 
study abroad or work, or work overseas.
    So, I had the experience of talking to them. And I think 
sometimes if we, like for example, in a school if they provide 
scholarships they could single out Hong Kong as a region from 
China and give them separate courses, then it will facilitate 
them to be able to get these funds and to study abroad and 
continue their career as a scholar.
    And I think this is important because while in the U.S. we 
have a lot of, well, speculations about whether there are 
covert missions from the ten students, whether they are guided 
by their party. And sometimes there are lots of vacancies on 
the grants which are supposedly given to them, but for now 
stopped it because of political reasons. And these funds could 
be transferred to Hong Kong students who are brilliant in other 
terms, but being deprived because of their political beliefs.
    So, I think this is one thing that we could support them 
locally and then to culture them in a free space. And they 
could, well, kind of repay back to Hong Kong with their own 
terms.
    Ms. Titus. Maybe we need to look at that specifically as we 
think about sanctions or safe harbors to not forget about that 
whole student, academic, faculty, researcher population.
    Anybody else?
    Mr. Lee. Yes. Just one more point.
    You know, the way the Communist Party they are having a 
multi-front attack over the civil society, of course, including 
universities, academics, and also secondary school teachers. So 
they will, because they blame everything on the teachers about 
what, the behavior of the youth, when actually, of course, the 
youth is leading the movement, not leading academics.
    One thing they will do in the future in every aspect of 
Hong Kong life is they will put political loyalty above 
anything. You know, any profession that you may be very, very, 
you know, sharp and outstanding in the profession, but if you 
are not politically loyal then they will not, you know, hire 
you in the academic field. So, in every aspect of life they 
want only one thing: loyalty to the Communist Party.
    Mr. Castro. All right, you all.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
    We are going to go to Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I unfortunately didn't hear all the questioning here 
because I am the ranking member of the House Small Business 
Committee, so I just came from a hearing there. So, if I repeat 
anything that others have already asked, I apologize in 
advance.
    But I would open this question up to any of the witnesses 
who might like to respond.
    I am one of the founding co-chairs of the congressional 
Taiwan Caucus. And I am currently co-chair of the caucus as 
well. So, I would ask that based on the Chinese Communist 
Party's decisions relative to Hong Kong with the National 
Security Law, what should we expect China's next move against 
Taiwan potentially to be?
    And what should Taiwan learn from Hong Kong's experience?
    And I would, again, yield to any of the witnesses who might 
like to respond.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    Professor Petersen, do you want to jump in?
    Ms. Petersen. I would just say very briefly that I think 
Taiwan already knows that One Country, Two Systems was not 
going to be fulfilled. It was originally developed for Taiwan. 
And sometimes people used to say when I first moved to Hong 
Kong in 1989, that Taiwan was Hong Kong's insurance policy 
because the Chinese Government would want to show Taiwan that 
it will keep its promises.
    But, clearly, that hasn't happened. And I do not even think 
that China is trying to take any sort of soft diplomatic 
approach to Taiwan anymore. They are just trying to scare 
Taiwan.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
    Any of the other witnesses want to weigh in?
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    I think in recent years there has been tremendous 
interaction and exchange of Hong Kong's Taiwanese civil 
society. And Taiwan's activists and comments that I have heard 
actually learn tremendous view of how CCP envisions an ideology 
about control, you know, how dominant, you know, One Country, 
Two Systems can be, you know, once implemented in Hong Kong,.
    So, I think I agree with Professor Petersen that it shows 
that One Country, Two Systems is a broken promise as that could 
not implement in Taiwan.
    The last year, Anti-Extradition Bill Movement had helped 
tremendously to sway the discussion in Taiwan about how do we 
perceive China. And I think China would not give up their 
ambitions toward Taiwan or Hong Kong. And I think they will try 
to exert that national security concept to Taiwan here, if not 
formal legislation, some informal institution and informal 
channel of influence.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. Let me go to another 
question.
    What should the international community, specifically the 
United States, do to impose real consequences on the CCP for 
suppressing freedom in Hong Kong, while minimizing any 
blowback, or any consequences, or any hardships on the people 
of Hong Kong itself who we obviously want to help and stand 
with? We do not want to make their lives any more challenging 
than they already are.
    But what is the best way to impose hardship for the bad 
behavior of China without harming the people of Hong Kong?
    Again, to any witness who might like to take that.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    Again, China has used Hong Kong as a conduit to import 
sensitive technology, to finance its companies who are in 
tremendous debt, to conduct let's say IPOs or various champions 
in Hong Kong. So, China has benefited tremendously from Hong 
Kong as a gateway to international finance, a gateway to 
international technology, especially from America.
    So, those spheres where America can exert tangible 
influence on China and without a democratized parliament for 
institutions. Actually, Hong Kong have not benefited 
tremendously from those economic arrangements, so the consensus 
in Hong Kong now is basically we have to hold China accountable 
and stop them from abusing our special economic status.
    So, I think the support is actually there for U.S. to 
implement more tangible sanctions on China.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And I will get in one last question, 
if I can.
    One of Hong Kong's principal strengths, obviously, is that 
it is such a great place to do business. If any of the, maybe 
one of the witnesses could discuss whether this new National 
Security Law will have a chilling effect on businesses and 
their international employees over and above any political 
activity?
    Mr. Law. Thank you very much. I know all kinds of 
professionals and they are all thinking about leaving Hong 
Kong. I talked with some stakeholders, they are also thinking 
about stop moving into Hong Kong, stop injecting more funds 
until Hong Kong is more stable.
    So, I think it is important to realize that we are not the 
ones who are harming Hong Kong or creating economic 
difficulties for Hong Kong. But the Chinese Communist Party 
they are actually destroying Hong Kong as a city that could 
embrace different values and different opinions. And it is 
really vital for business. So, I think, yes indeed, we are 
suffering much from the implementation of National Security 
Law.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. Thank you.
    I recognize Mr. Malinowski.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank our witnesses for their continued commitment and courage 
in speaking out on behalf of the people of Hong Kong.
    We are all aware that we are in a contest with the Chinese 
Communist Party, a contest of ideas. And, unfortunately for the 
people of Hong Kong, they are playing a role similar to the 
people of Berlin during the cold war. This is a battleground in 
that contest. And we cannot underestimate how important this is 
and how difficult it is going to be, given the determination of 
Beijing to crush the freedom of the people of Hong Kong.
    My focus has been on what can we practically do about it. I 
strongly support targeted sanctions. But, to be frank, I do not 
think they are going to do much good in terms of deterring the 
Chinese Government from these actions.
    I think more important as Mr., I think, Leung mentioned, is 
to take action to withdraw some of the privileges that 
corporations doing business in Hong Kong currently receive. 
That is a difficult conversation we are going to have to 
continue to have.
    We have spoken also a lot here today about the importance 
of offering safe haven for people from Hong Kong. And I think 
that is incredibly important. And I want to make sure we are 
all clear. We have two pieces of legislation that I think are 
equally important
    Mr. Curtis, Mr. Castro, and others have offered a piece of 
legislation that I have co-sponsored to provide expedited 
refugee status for activists, for people in Hong Kong who have 
a credible fear of persecution. That is a lifeline for the 
people who need it the most.
    A number of us, including myself, Mr. Curtis as well, Mr. 
Phillips, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. McGovern, have offered an 
additional piece of legislation, the Freedom and Choice Act, 
which is meant not only as a lifeline but as a warning to 
Beijing. Because in that legislation we also offer admission to 
the United States to people from Hong Kong with advanced 
degrees, business owners, those who have completed 
undergraduate degrees in the United States.
    The idea here is very simply to say to the Communist Party 
of China that if you, indeed, suffocate and crush Hong Kong you 
will lose its wealth and talent to the United States, you will 
lose its wealth and talent to what you consider to be your 
greatest adversary. And, frankly, your loss will be our gain.
    The point here is, again, not just to provide a lifeline 
but a warning in order to try to deter Beijing from doing its 
worst to Hong Kong.
    And I wanted to ask the witnesses about this combination of 
efforts, and particularly whether they think that that warning 
might have some impact on Beijing's calculations because, after 
all, they want Hong Kong because of its wealth and talent. And 
we know they are very worried about the brain drain to the 
United States, to the United Kingdom, to Canada, to Australia.
    Mr. Leung, maybe begin with you. Do you believe that this, 
this kind of action might be noticed in Beijing and might 
actually affect its calculations?
    Mr. Leung. Well, definitely I think Beijing is under 
pressure and that is why they wanted to implement the National 
Security Law in order to try to squash the movement in Hong 
Kong. But, in fact, it actually reignites the whole movement. 
We have a lot of people come down to the street to protest. And 
they are obviously not afraid of the newly implemented National 
Security Law.
    And I think actually, well, Beijing backfires himself. And 
I think for the international community we should have a 
multilateral, comprehensive, cohesive strategy dealing with 
China issues, not only in Hong Kong but also, for example, 
treaty--well, they will have Winter Olympics really soon. And 
shall we endorse that? Shall we participate in that? If we do 
not, then what message could we deliver in order to hold China 
accountable?
    And I think this is important that we put this kind of 
angle looking at China issue in every respect, in every 
perspective, including the human rights violations in Xinjiang, 
the intimidation to Taiwan, the cultural genocide in Tibet. So, 
I think yes, indeed, China is really pressured. But we have to 
push far more than only words, but we need coalition, we need 
alliance, and we need multilateral and comprehensive actions to 
them.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thanks.
    Anyone else just quickly want to chime in on whether 
offering admission--to the United States?
    Mr. Lee. Yes. I just, yes, I want to talk about that this 
is logical time to add pressure from the Chinese Communist 
Party in suppressing human rights in China or Hong Kong. And 
one example I think Kai-ping has mentioned about Zoom.
    Actually, I am the victim of being blocked, my account was 
being blocked by Zoom. And afterwards, apart from me, two other 
activists in America talked about June 4th involvement, and I 
will follow them on June 4th, our account was blocked. And then 
the explanation is that because the Chinese Government had 
asked them to block our account.
    And then the answer to our, the theory of the media is 
that, OK, in the future they won't block our account but they 
will block all Chinese participants. This is the way that the 
businessman behavior. The same with the SSCC you know, willing 
to sign on to the National Security Law, so business had to be 
held also, you know, responsible for human rights violations in 
many parts of the world and not to support the regime that 
suppressed human rights.
    Mr. Leung. If I might just address very quickly about the 
industries----
    Mr. Castro. You want to, you want to for about 10 seconds.
    Mr. Leung. Actually, add substantive pressure on China. For 
example, the U.K. recommendation about favorable opening of the 
BNO, actually it was met with severe criticism from the foreign 
affairs department from Chinese companies--from Chinese 
Government.
    For example, Hong Kong housing market is sustained by Hong 
Kong people. And they are actively substantively owned by a lot 
of, like, property developers from China. So, when Hong Kong 
people leave from Hong Kong on a substantive scale, actually it 
hurt Chinese interests. When, for example, our financial 
market, stock market,----
    Mr. Castro. Sir.
    Mr. Leung [continuing]. Housing market are affected.
    Mr. Castro. I am going, I am going to have to--I apologize. 
These are all very engaging questions and answers. But I want 
to make sure that all of the members have time to engage with 
all the witnesses and ask their questions, especially before we 
have to go vote in just a bit.
    So, with that, thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
    I am going to recognize Mr. Phillips now.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to each of our 
witnesses, I celebrate your courage and gratitude on behalf of 
this entire committee for being with us today.
    I woke up to two very troubling headlines in the New York 
Times this morning. One, ``China's Software Stalked Uyghurs 
Earlier and More Widely, Researchers Learn.``
    And, second, ``Arrests in Hong Kong as Security Law Sends 
Chill Over the City.'' As we see live reports right now what is 
happening in the streets of Hong Kong.
    You know, I have to give President Xi some credit. He has 
accomplished something that many thoughts was impossible, and 
that is unifying Democrats and Republicans right here in the 
U.S. Congress, citizens of the United States, all in opposition 
to his oppressive and repressive policies.
    The foundation of Hong Kong is freedom. And that foundation 
has been dealt a terribly damaging blow in the past 24 hours.
    With that said, we talked about sanctions. We talked about 
condemnations. But I like the notion of invitations, as my 
colleague Mr. Malinowski just spoke to. That is why I am a 
original co-sponsor of his bill, the Hong Kong People's Freedom 
and Choice Act, which will protect Hong Kongers who are facing 
persecution.
    And I also celebrate Boris Johnson's announcement that the 
United Kingdom is going to offer 3 million Hong Kong citizens 
with British national status, a path to full citizenship.
    And I want to take this opportunity to call on the rest of 
the world to consider extending those same invitations to Hong 
Kongers who are now being oppressed and repressed.
    So, on the notion of invitations versus sanctions, I would 
love to hear from our panelists today their perspectives on how 
effective such policies might be. If we might start with you, 
Mr. Leung.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    Again, I myself and others, many of my close friends, have 
to face a very difficult situation of leaving Hong Kong because 
of decades of possible imprisonment. So, having a lifeboat, 
having a safety valve for people who are in immediate danger, 
and in the situation where the court is not independent anymore 
because the chief executive would actually hand pick judges, it 
is extremely important. So, that is the first.
    And I think, second, invitations and sanctions are not 
mutually exclusive. And I would reference the ideology of the 
movement that has been very popular in Hong Kong which is ``Be 
Water!`` I think people in Hong Kong are very flexible in their 
tactics: if they have to leave for immediate danger, they will 
do so. And they will continue their fight in overseas, for 
example in the United States.
    So, I think a combination of those strategies by offering 
tangible pressure on China, and on the other hand offering a 
viable option for Hong Kong people are extremely important and 
well balanced.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, sir.
    Professor Petersen, if you might share some perspective on 
invitations.
    Ms. Petersen. Yes. I would fully support the idea of the 
Safe Harbor Act and the Freedom of Choice Act.
    And I would like to also circle back to a point that one of 
the representatives made about academics and students. And I 
would just like to suggest that you might look into the 
network, there is an international network known as Scholars at 
Risk, and it is a network of universities all around the world 
that try to support academics and students who are at risk of 
having their academic freedom and other freedoms violated.
    And often what that needs is some funding to be able to 
help bring academics on academic visits where they can escape 
persecution and actually do some research. So, I think that 
would be very productive.
    And then I would just like to reiterate the importance of 
the United States being more active in the U.N. human rights 
treaty monitoring bodies and ratifying more treaties and 
getting reactivated in the U.N. Human Rights Council.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Professor.
    Mr. Law.
    Mr. Law. Well, I think it is really important for us to 
realize that not only people that face oppression and then, 
well, some of them are speaking out. But for those working 
underground they also need the attention of the world.
    Second, these combination of strategies are much needed.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Lee, if you want to share some perspective we have 
about 20 seconds left.
    Mr. Lee. Yes. Thank you.
    I think invitation is one strategy. And I think people in 
Hong Kong, those especially who are under immense fear of their 
future security and have a safe harbor is very important. But 
at the same time, you know, we are in for the long haul. I 
think that the system in Hong Kong will be in for a long haul. 
And we need a long-term support. And we hope that we can get 
it, international community support Hong Kong in the long term, 
not just this, just this moment of necessity, but it will go on 
for some time
    Thank you.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, sir. A good reminder to all of us.
    I yield back my time.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
    I recognize now Mr. Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
it.
    You know, earlier today I heard the Speaker come in here 
and say that she studies Chinese history and politics for an 
hour a day. You know, that is nice, but maybe we should 
actually take an hour today and actually run the Hong Kong 
Autonomy Act. It passed unanimously in the Senate. And this 
would actually do something. It would actually sanction the bad 
actors that are cracking down on Hong Kong.
    So, when I hear about the 1-hour a day it frustrates me, 
because I am glad people are studying this, but we can actually 
do something to combat CCP aggression in Hong Kong. And every 
day, every hour that we delay this we allow the CCP to 
consolidate power, we allow the CCP to arrest more freedom 
fighters, we allow the CCP to erode and chip away at Hong 
Kong's autonomy.
    So, how about instead of studying this issue like the 
Speaker says she does, how about we actually take an hour each 
session day and run bills to hold China accountable?
    How about we take an hour next session day and we do 
something about the atrocities on the Uyghurs?
    How about we take an hour and do something about the theft 
of intellectual property?
    How about we take an hour out of one session day and talk 
about how the Chinese and CCP steal innovation from our 
colleges and universities?
    How about we take an hour one session day and do something 
about the Chinese dumping fentanyl in the United States, 
particularly in my district where people are actually dying of 
overdoses?
    So, I am glad that the Speaker says she takes an hour a day 
to study these issues, but how about we actually--how about 
instead of studying these issues we actually do something to 
hold China accountable?
    And with all due respect to the witnesses, they are great 
people, they are doing--they are doing a great job testifying 
today, but I do not want to single anybody out, but I have 
heard about international institutions and how these are the 
answers. Well, the Chinese have already excluded our 
international institutions. They have completely taken over the 
World Health Organization. The WHO has become a--has just 
parroted CCB--CCP talking points. The international criminal 
courts I hear being talked about do nothing but single out 
Americans and Brits and Israelis while doing nothing about 
transgressions of the PLA.
    So, I hope the air conditioning is nice in your ivory 
tower, but how about you get out of it and actually take a 
realistic view of foreign policy, and how about you advocate so 
the Speaker and my colleagues across the aisle actually run an 
act which is going to do something that is better than writing 
a strongly worded letter, and actually have sanctions on CCP 
members that are overrunning Hong Kong.
    So, again, an hour a day could be better spent actually 
running bills to hold the CCP accountable.
    Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Allred from Texas.
    Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us 
today, and commend you for your incredible bravery. I, and many 
Americans watched in awe as the people of Hong Kong took to the 
streets to protest the proposed extradition laws nearly a year 
ago in just amazing numbers. And the bravery of the people of 
Hong Kong I think is an inspiration to people around the world.
    The fight for democracy in Hong Kong is not just a fight 
for only Hong Kongers, it is a fight for self-determination, 
human rights, and the advancement of freedom around the world. 
And as the world's oldest democracy, we must in a bipartisan 
way not only stand with the people of Hong Kong, but we must 
act.
    And I agree with my colleagues statements about the 
legislation offered, safer harbor and refugee status to Hong 
Kongers, and the need to not only sign some of our bipartisan 
legislation but to also issue sanctions against Chinese 
officials, while I recognize that that may alone not be enough.
    The point raised by Mr. Leung several times today, and by 
Professor Petersen, is one that I want to stress. The way to 
stand up to China is not through bluster and unilateral trade 
restrictions while asking for help with your reelection. The 
way to present--the way to stand up to the Chinese is to 
present a united front of the international community, and to 
engage in the diplomatic mechanisms in the U.N. and elsewhere 
to raise and legitimize issues with China.
    The United States is the only country that can gather the 
world around these issues. And so, we have to lead.
    These international treaties and mechanisms are only as 
strong as the U.S.'s commitment to them. When we withdraw, they 
do not go away, they are just simply used by the Chinese and 
others who do not believe in the expansion of democracy, in 
human rights, in the right of self-determination.
    And as a member of this committee, meeting for the first 
time after some pretty big revelations have been issued about 
this Administration, I think we have to talk about the elephant 
in the room, which is that the President of the United States 
has been accused by his former national security advisor, John 
Bolton, of offering his support for concentration camps. 
Concentration camps. This is such a departure from past U.S. 
presidents that I cannot even really overState how harmful this 
is to our status as the leader around the world in human 
rights.
    History books will write about this unspeakable breaking of 
the U.S. commitment to human rights.
    Now, we have about 2 minutes left in my time. My only 
question to the witnesses is to offer you a chance to expound 
upon some of the things you have said today so that the people 
in my district in Texas and the American people can put a face 
here in our democratically elected and empowered forum to what 
is happening in Hong Kong; and to ask you how you feel about 
this law that has been put in place, this repressive law; and 
how you feel about what you are seeing and not seeing from the 
United States.
    And you can go in any order that you want.
    Mr. Lee. Yes. Thank you, sir. I will comment first, 
Chairman.
    I think everyone in Hong Kong when they wake up every day 
they have to make decisions now after the law was being passed. 
What kind of message they could put on Facebook? Should they 
come out to march or gather? Will they be arrested? Should I 
teach my children critical thinking because, you know, the 
Communist Party want to brainwash my children?
    You know, these are the things that everyday life of the 
people of Hong Kong are now being pressured, and they are now 
living in fear of, you know, crossing the line too far. And for 
me personally, therefore, as a political activist, you know, we 
are also putting ourselves on the line.
    But I think the people of Hong Kong, as mentioned, we are, 
you know, we are ``Be Water!`` We will try to be innovative in 
our struggle, and we will continue our fight.
    Mr. Leung. Thank you for the question.
    When I know the fact that I have to be forced to exile, and 
leave my home places and come to America, you know, to resume 
my graduate study, I have met incredible colleagues who share 
their story about their Iranian family who fled from their 
country in the Seventies, or European countries who were under 
Nazi rule. So, it comfort me in the sense to know that U.S. 
story is actually composed of many people like me and other 
freedom fighters who actually have been forced to leave their 
country
    So, I hope the U.S. story will continue to inspire people. 
And I hope that more Hong Kong people will be able to continue 
their struggle in this place or other countries.
    Mr. Castro. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Allred.
    I will now go to Mr. Levin.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mr. 
Chairman.
    You know, it feels to me like this is the most troubling 
time for human rights in China since 1989. And I was in Hong 
Kong in late May 1989 in what was the biggest demonstration 
then in the history of Hong Kong, certainly the biggest I had 
ever seen.
    And I was in Chengdu on June 4th, 1989, and witnessed the 
killing of demonstrators there in numbers that have never 
really been recorded properly by history. Today, an estimated 1 
million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Hui, and other ethnic Muslim 
minorities are interned in Xinjiang, as Mr. Allred said, in 
concentration camps.
    The Tibetan people are denied basic human rights and the 
very existence of their culture is threatened.
    And now the freedom of Hong Kongers hangs in the balance.
    I wish I could say that the United States has been a 
champion for the rights of these peoples but, as many of my 
colleagues have made clear here today, this Administration has 
sent exactly the wrong signals and taken exactly the wrong 
steps in the case of Xinjiang, and Hong Kong, and others.
    Professor Petersen, do you believe that the failure of the 
United States to be more forceful in its defense of human 
rights earlier about Hong Kong, certainly about Xinjiang, has 
emboldened Xi Jinping?
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you for the question.
    Yes, I do. I think that even though the naming and shaming 
process may not be a very coercive enforcement process, it is 
one process that can be effective, particularly if all of the 
world leaders get together and really name abuses of human 
rights publicly when they see them.
    And if one very influential country, like the United 
States, does not participate actively in the international 
human rights monitoring system, then we weaken it.
    So, yes, I agree with that. Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you.
    You know, last month the Washington Post published a piece 
by a Cornell professor named Allen Carlson titled ``What's in 
store for Hong Kong? Look at Tibet.`` Carlson writes, ``Just as 
China has imposed more, rather than less, assimilationist 
policies each time Tibetans protested Chinese misrule, Beijing 
has now set the table to adopt a much tougher response to Hong 
Kong's ongoing protest movement.`` And I will say, add brave 
protest movement.
    Professor Petersen, to what extent do you believe the cases 
of Tibet and Hong Kong are similar in this way?
    Ms. Petersen. I think that there are some very important 
differences. And one of the differences is that Hong Kong did 
have a very independent legal system and a lot of advantages to 
begin with. And I think that is one of the reasons that many 
scholars of autonomy and the model of autonomy in international 
law thought that it could work in Hong Kong because Hong Kong 
had the tradition of an independent legal profession, an 
independent judiciary, a free press, and had all the advantages 
of being an international financial city.
    Mr. Levin. Right.
    Ms. Petersen. The fact that it hasn't worked shows how it 
makes it all the more disappointing. I think it shows that the 
repression of the Chinese Government is even more extreme than 
we thought; the fact that they could do this and get away with 
it so far, even in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Levin. Yes. Well, let me--that seems so right, but let 
me ask all of you. I mean, I feel like a thread, I participated 
in this whole hearing and a thread throughout it is that the 
human rights of people anywhere are threatened when the human 
rights of people elsewhere are undermined. The Chinese 
Government has used advance surveillance systems in Tibet, in 
Xinjiang, and now really everywhere to undermine people's human 
rights.
    I feel like it is really a question of all the countries in 
the world coming together to make a renewed commitment to human 
rights. And without U.S. leadership it is hard to see that 
happening.
    Thoughts from any of you.
    Mr. Lee. I think we need to put values above profit. I 
think when Xi Jinping goes about around the world, you know, 
people may talk to him about human rights and then find 
agreement on, you know, trade, and then Xi Jinping go away very 
happy with the profit, the money that he is gaining. But where 
is the human rights? You know, he knows his hypocrisy. And we 
need the world to really stick to values and not just looking 
for the money.
    I think that is very important.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. I guess my time is expired, Mr. 
Chairman, so I will yield back.
    Thanks to our tremendous witnesses.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. I am going to recognize Ms. 
Spanberger. You need a second?
    Ms. Houlahan.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Congress has consistently demonstrated bipartisan support 
for the people of Hong Kong. And I am fortunate enough to have 
been able to do a lot of work over in Hong Kong and in Asia in 
general. We have supported Hong Kong, the Uyghurs, the 
Tibetans, and we have been consistently interested in making 
sure Chinese officials who are responsible for human rights 
violations are punished against these populations.
    Despite this and many of the authorities in Congress have 
provided to the Trump Administration to hold the Chinese 
individuals accountable, President Trump has failed to 
meaningfully act in support of human rights in China or really 
anywhere else.
    John Bolton wrote in his memoir that President Trump did 
not want to get involved when millions in Hong Kong were taking 
to the streets last year. President Trump even praised Xi 
Jinping's handling of the situation.
    President Trump also reportedly held off on imposing 
sanctions against Chinese officials involved with the mass 
detention camps because, in doing so, he would have interfered 
with his trade deal with Beijing.
    My question to you all is what message does this send to 
the people of Hong Kong, to the Uyghurs, to the Tibetans, to 
those, frankly, fighting for democracy and rights everywhere?
    My second question is, given Trump's transactional approach 
toward foreign policy, how can we ensure that Hong Kong does 
not become a pawn in the broader U.S.-China strategic 
competition?
    And I will turn my question over to either of the 
witnesses.
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you. Well, I will take a stab at that.
    It is a very difficult question. And I do not think the 
people of Hong Kong deserve to be a political football or a 
strategic chip to be played. And so, while I very much support 
any measure that will offer safe harbor to the people of Hong 
Kong and help to name and shame human rights violations 
anywhere, I do think it is important that we have a stable 
foreign policy and that it will be based on multilateral 
actions and multilateral institutions.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Houlahan. Do you all have anything else to add to that?
    Mr. Lee. On the second question I think, you know, we have 
faith in democracy. And I think any government that are not 
really sticking to the principles, you know, will be, there 
will be a check and balance on the part of the legislature and 
also the people movement.
    So, I think it is very important that the message of 
supporting Hong Kong, human rights, and freedom and democracy 
should not stay on just the level of the politicians, but 
really go to the everyday life of the people of the United 
States and linking up union with union. You know, I talked to 
JCR yesterday night on the situation in Hong Kong, linking 
university to university, student unions to student unions.
    So, we need really a people-to-people solidarity in order 
to make sure that all democracy in the world will listen to the 
people and be on the side of the freedom and democracy.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I very much appreciate your time 
and your testimony. And I yield the balance of my time.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you.
    Ms. Spanberger.
    Mr. Spanberger. I would like to begin by thanking every one 
of our witnesses today for speaking with us, particularly given 
the risks associated with publicly discussing these very 
sensitive matters. I stand with the people of Hong Kong in 
their calls for human rights, democracy, and autonomous rule.
    During my time as a CIA case officer I saw the impacts of 
tools that I consider to be part of the dictator's playbook. 
For example, it is common for authoritarian leaders to use the 
guise of national security and the flexibility of vague laws to 
repress opposition and deter democratic progress.
    Ms. Petersen, how do you expect the Chinese Communist Party 
to take advantage of the lack of specificity in the new 
National Security Law for Hong Kong to curb freedom of 
expression and consolidate power?
    Ms. Petersen. Thank you. Well, that goes back to one of the 
points that I didn't quite get to in my testimony, which is 
that there are a number of vague provisions in the new National 
Security Law. However, one of the provisions also says that the 
ICCPR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights, shall continue to be respected and protected in Hong 
Kong. And that potentially should serve as a guide to 
interpreting vague clauses.
    Mr. Spanberger. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Petersen. There is a direct contradiction, a vague 
clause should be interpreted so as to comply with the ICCPR. 
And the U.N. Human Rights Committee has repeatedly held that 
national security cannot be used as a basis to quash peaceful 
advocacy for multi-party democracy, constitutional change, et 
cetera.
    But we do not know whether the Hong Kong courts will be 
able to interpret the law because the law is silent on that 
fact. And we also know that the NPC Standing Committee in any 
event has the overriding power of interpretation.
    So, it is going to be difficult to know until we see actual 
cases that there is real danger that the Chinese Government 
will use these overly broad definitions to capture peaceful 
advocacy and to prosecute people for peaceful advocacy.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Spanberger. And in followup to the comments or the 
answer that you just gave, so then is it your assessment that 
it will be the Hong Kong officials who will have the power to 
interpret and implement the newly released National Security 
Law about how these authorities will actually affect Hong 
Kong's autonomy?
    Ms. Petersen. It really depends, first of all, on where the 
cases are tried. Carrie Lam, the chief executive, has said, and 
the law does say, that the general rule should be that the Hong 
Kong SAR has jurisdiction.
    Mr. Spanberger. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Petersen. That means tried in Hong Kong courts.
    And I have to say that Hong Kong judges, I believe, are by 
and large very independent. And, in general, they have done a 
good job of enforcing the ICCPR and holding both the Hong Kong 
Government and legislation accountable to that. So that if 
there is a vague clause, they try to interpret it to comply 
with the ICCPR.
    Now, the problem however is, is that the law says the power 
of interpretation of this law rests with the NPC Standing 
Committee, which will issue legislative interpretations. It is 
silent on whether the courts also get to interpret it.
    I know my colleagues and I have discussed this, and we 
believe that the power of interpretation is inherent in Hong 
Kong judiciary's power of final adjudication, their inherent 
power of statutory interpretation.
    So, I am hopeful that the courts of Hong Kong will be able 
to interpret the law in the course of trying cases. But I 
cannot predict with any certainty because if the NPC Standing 
Committee decides it does not want that to happen, it can issue 
an overriding interpretation which the Hong Kong courts will 
have to follow. So, I cannot give you a definite answer. I am 
sorry.
    Mr. Spanberger. No, I appreciate it. That is very helpful.
    While I am concerned, as are some of my colleagues, that 
the Trump Administration has not been consistently firm in 
communicating and executing its policy toward China, I do 
commend the State Department for its very strong May 28th joint 
statement with the governments of Australia, Canada, and the 
United Kingdom, in our clear opposition to Beijing imposing a 
National Security Law on Hong Kong.
    Ms. Petersen, one more question for you. Can you speak a 
little bit about how the United States can demonstrate 
continued leadership in multilateral settings that you believe 
would actually set a strong message, send a strong message to 
Beijing and encourage the Chinese Government to comply with its 
international obligations?
    Ms. Petersen. Yes, I can. Thank you for that question.
    First, I think the United States should ratify more 
multilateral human rights treaties. We have actually ratified 
fewer than China. That does not mean we have a worse human 
rights record, but it means we are not as active in the treaty 
monitoring bodies, so we are not as influential.
    Second, we need to become active again in the U.N. Human 
Rights Counsel rather than turning away from it because we 
might not like everything it does. We should become more active 
in that council.
    So, I think participating in these multilateral efforts is 
very, very important and can give the United States more 
influence and more solidarity with other like-minded countries.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Spanberger. Thank you very much. And to all the 
witnesses who may be experiencing time differences to be with 
us here this morning, thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Spanberger.
    All right. Well, that concludes questions from members. And 
I will move to closing remarks now.
    I want to thank our witnesses for their insight and 
expertise. And I want to take a moment to acknowledge the Hong 
Kong American community here in the United States. And although 
he is not at the witness stand today, I wanted to extend 
special thanks to Samuel Chu and the Hong Kong Democracy 
Council for their tireless advocacy, help, and support for Hong 
Kong.
    To my colleagues, thank you for joining this important 
conversation. I am glad that we can convene, in this case 
across many time zones through videoconferencing, to continue 
our committee's work in these challenging times.
    And with that, our hearing is adjourned today.
    [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM CHAIRMAN ENGEL
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]